ContrarianTrail @ ContrarianTrail @lemm.ee

Independent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.

---

Read more

Posts

21

Comments

809

Joined

11 mo. ago

I tend to feel that if it’s a streaming service providing access to a wide range of videos, it could be argued that you don’t own them and, therefore, can’t download them either. However, you could still have the option to pay extra to actually purchase the video too. That money should go to the creator, though, who, of course, would also set the price. That could be free too. I, for example, have no issue with people watching my car repair 'tutorials' on YouTube for free.

Sure, I have nothing against that. I, however, still think that whatever platform hosts their videos deserves some compensation, right? So that's going to be either subscribtion, ads or donations.

Ok, but 'fuck subscriptions' is a blanket statement directed at the subscribtion business model as whole, including the hypothetical well run, and non-greedy ones.

Right, but I don't see how simply being on the platform makes one part of the problem.

Yle.fi which is Finnish state media, similar to BBC.

Joe Rogan Experience, Modern Wisdom, Making Sense, Lex Fridman Podcast to name a few I listen to the most.

Sure, but it's also a fact that many of the YouTubers whose videos I deeply enjoy wouldn't be able to make them if it didn't make them any money

How do you apply this to a platform like YouTube? I don't even finish most of the videos I start watching there, and the ones I do, I'll likely never watch again anyway. Subscribtion seems much more logical profit model to a company like that.

Ah, I see. Live and let live.

As a non-US citizen, I'm getting the impression that a big number of left-wing voters are voting for Kamala not because she's so great, but because she's not Trump. Similarly, a ton of republicans are voting for Trump because they consider it a vote for the party, not for the candidate, and they sure are not going to vote for a democrat because (insert stereotypical grievances about liberals.)

To me, it seem reasonable to assume, that given the chance, there would be a ton of people on both sides that would rather give their vote to almost anyone else but either of these two, but they don't because they know that a 3rd party can't win and this would just risk the greater or two evils winning.

Why I referenced the prisoner's dilemma is because I mostly see this as a coordination problem. What if instead of tactical voting, everyone just voted for the candidate they actually consider the best one? It's not at all obvious to me that this would still mean that either of the two main candidates would win. This could very well give rise to a 3rd party.

Also, to return to my original point; it doesn't seem immoral to me to vote for 3rd party even if that causes Trump to win by one vote. You did the right thing, rest of the people didn't. If everyone acted like you, it seems to be that this would, in fact, lead to him not winning.

say 20% of voters in swing states voted third party, it would let the greater evil in

Not in the case of ranked choice voting. If the 3rd party candidate doesn't win the vote goes to the number two choice.

Also, sometimes the lesser evil is still evil. Imagine if the vote was between Trump and literal Hitler.

But how do you apply this to a platform like YouTube? I don't want to have to buy each video I watch.

What? Using twitter causes people to die now?

I wonder if the right-wing content actually has increased, or if it's just the ratio of it compared to left-wing content as much of the left has seemingly abandoned the platform.

My feed was almost entirely non-political to begin with, and personally, I've hardly noticed any difference, though the little politics that do get thru tend to indeed lean right.

What's the problem?

YouTube is my TV. I don't pretty much watch any movies or tv-shows.

Politically, I’m pretty much right in the middle. The only news source I follow is fairly neutral, with a slight left-wing bias, whereas Lemmy leans heavily to the left. On the other hand, the podcasts I listen to tend to lean more right, so I’d say I get a balanced diet of views from both sides. This probably explains why, on most political topics, I don’t usually have a strong opinion one way or the other. Whether I’m seen as leaning left or right really depends on the group I’m with. On Lemmy, for instance, I’m basically considered far-right.

I think a good measure of whether something is moral is to imagine everyone doing it and consider if it would make the world a better or worse place.

In the U.S., most people probably don’t vote for a third party because they assume no one else will, so they worry their vote will be wasted. It’s a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma: if you vote and no one else does, you lose, but if everyone voted, everyone would benefit.

So, if someone does choose to vote third party, was it the right thing to do? Well, what if every voter acted this way? There’s a good chance the third party could win, and while it’s debatable, it’s reasonable to assume they might be a better choice than the other two.

Ranked-choice voting would solve this issue, by the way.

Doesn't quite work with something like streaming services

Mittens are warmer than gloves.

Winter shoes must fit a woolen sock and not be too tight, otherwise the insulation gets compressed and doesn't work.

Better to wear many layers rather than just one layer of super thick clothing

My subscribtions are Protonmail, Mullvad VPN and ChatGPT. On top of that I'm paying a voluntary monthy donation to a podcast.

That's it. If I had to guess, YouTube premium will be the next one but so far adblocking still seems to work.