CmdrShepard @ CmdrShepard @lemmy.one

Posts

2

Comments

1,844

Joined

2 yr. ago

Reading through these comments, I can't help but think there's astroturfing happening here when every single comment seems to be saying the same thing nearly verbatim:

"This is a huge overreaction!"

"Most channels have excellent merch products!"

"I like seeing merch ads on videos I watch!"

It's one thing to have links in the description or creators mentioning their merch in the video. It's a whole other thing to have a banner in the client advertising products that take up nearly the same amount of screen space as the video itself. All these naysayers seemed to have been able to easily navigate to these shops and purchase merchandise before youtube started pushing it in our faces, so why is it necessary now, especially on accounts that are paying for premium? Should we also just accept additional ads outside the video from corporate sponsors since they also fund the channel directly? Where do you draw the line?

Youtube is the one displaying these new ads though.

I'm wondering why we're even currently talking about an organization that was only relevant for like two years thirteen years ago.

I don't see how this makes it any easier. Furthermore, the previous person's entire argument was that this would set the precedent that allows this to start happening. It already happens and is very typical for anyone charged with a crime.

Believe it or not, the electricity also runs outside under the ground.

I totally agree but my wife does have the McDonald's app which gives decent discounts on food. I get to live the best of both worlds by not having to download the app while still benefiting from the discounts.

As a Papa Murphys lover, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd ever need to install their app. You can order from the website just as easily.

I'll give them a pass as I assume they got some bottom of the barrel developer to cheaply create their app and it doesn't get anywhere near the level of attention that something like YouTube's app would.

This is only true for large, legacy companies like Coca Cola though. This doesn't work for startups shilling shitty headphones, flashlights, VPNs, mobile games, etc because you're unlikely to randomly come across their product when walking around the grocery store for example.

Does it really cost them? If we take it to the extreme and say everyone collectively decided to stop costing them money by watching their content for free, what would that do to the value of their platform?

They'll gladly keep absorbing all those tax dollars though, and you better give them a COL increase in next year's budget or else fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky.

Lidarr automates the acquisition but doesn't actually supply you with any songs to download. I have to agree with them that pirating music is not easy these days and this is coming from someone in about half a dozen private trackers with around 60TB of TV and movies on my server.

Aside from finding the files, there's also barely any standard for file naming and lots of different sources for specific songs (from multiple different albums even) which makes managing it all a huge pain in the ass (Lidarr does help with this part though provided your sources are good).

This poor guy probably never saw the text messages released in the Dominion lawsuit between Fox talent like Tucker Carlson and management describing their audience as a bunch of gullible morons.

This feels like a situation where everyone knows about a person cheating on their spouse, except for the spouse, and everyone is too uncomfortable to say anything to them about it.

It's very common for the far right to fabricate a story and then use that fabrication as "evidence of a conspiracy to hide the truth because nobody else is talking about this thing we made up!"

It's a perfect positive feedback loop for the rubes out there.

Lol all it took to trigger you was for someone to criticize Fox News' integrity. I'm sure they appreciate you falling on the sword to protect their reputation.

That sounds like a very apt description of our country currently. We're willing to sacrifice so many lives so that some scared, fragile men can feel 'safe' when walking around in public.

Cute rhetoric to match your own!

So do you oppose holding people in jail who've only been accused of a crime? For example, your friendly neighborhood serial killer gets arrested and held without bail until trial, losing nearly all of his rights in the process. Are you really arguing this person should walk free because he hasn't been tried and convicted? Doesn't this precedent also create a slippery slope where before you know it, we're all forced to be microchipped and tracked by the government?

You seem very opinionated without having actually sat down and thought your argument through to any logical conclusion.

Do you really want to be put in prison without a trial as soon as some cop arrests you for something the cop made up?

Like that doesn't already happen?

I've spent time in the Midwest and most residential parking lots already have outlets all over the place for block hearers in the winter. If a tiny apartment complex in North Dakota can do it, so can everyone else.

Well I'm using the same designation of 'poor' as you were in the above comment. I'd say those with leased vehicles would definitely not fall into the category of poor.

While people aren't really being federally prosecuted, the ban still does have far reaching effects like not being able to cross a state border while in possession, get a federal job, or open a bank account as a dispensary (except in some circumstances). Our state department of revenue had to spend millions of dollars to build a giant vault in order to collect millions of dollars in cash from the tax revenue.

I just find it frustrating since I think there's plenty of political will to just end this draconian prohibition nationwide relatively easily, but nobody seems willing to step up to the plate regardless of party.