Successful in pissing off the general public and causing them to ignore anything of substance that you have to say, sure. Pushing people away from your cause is not a good strategy if you want to effect change.
The monetised fomo events are why I pretty much stopped logging in. If a game offers me to pay to not play it, I'm just gonna not play it and keep my money.
The problem with that is that providing a platform and a revenue stream is providing support. Whatever the intent is, that is the result. The issue isn't what I see on the Steam store, it's providing a platform at all.
And yes, obviously there's the question of where to draw the line. But not drawing one at all means providing support for the Alex Joneses of the world. There's no way around that. And I don't think that that's a worthwhile trade.
To the best of my knowledge Valve allows basically everything that's not outright illegal. They aren't nearly as much of a "good" corporation as they're often framed as. They'll happily provide a platform for and take their 30% from anyone, including racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc.
No. But that does not make a one-state solution feasible. Neither side would be willing to agree to it, and even if you could force it, the new state would violently implode the second you remove that external force.
Also, the sheer amount of hatred between the two groups means that a one-state solution (even if it could be willed into existence without violence) would be, at best, highly volatile.
So, uh, if you have a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea" where do the Jews (who were born and raised in Israel, and who have no other homes) go? It's not a call for freedom, it's not a call for a ceasefire, it's not a call for Israel to withdraw its settlers from the West Bank, it's not a call for a two-state solution, it's a call for a repeat Holocaust.
Directed energy weapons already exist today. They're mostly experimental, but the US and Germany (and possibly others) are both investing millions into R&D and have working prototypes.
There's no moral difference between refusing to save a life (at least when you can do so without putting your own life in danger) and actively killing someone.
It also doesn't allow you to actually exclude keywords. Which can be utterly infuriating if you're looking for a specific entry in a franchise or a lesser used definition of something.
Sure, but the Fairphone 5 is €700 and, ease of repair aside, you can get a better phone for less than half the price. Repairability doesn't mean much when buying a cheaper (and otherwise better) phone and fully replacing it ends up being, well, cheaper.
I'm sure that millions of Afghan women would disagree with this. The nation building in Afghanistan was fucked from the start because it completely ignored Afghan tradions of life and government, and the Western-style government was horribly corrupt and failed to inspire any sort of loyalty, but just leaving was incredibly destructive too.
The constant need for growth won't go away. As long as the population grows, economic output needs to grow. All those people need food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, random crap, work, etc.
Yes, in the Western World a lot of it is a distribution problem, but even if we solved that you still can't expect the rest of the world to just settle for lower standards of living than Europe and North America. They won't. And they shouldn't.
Successful in pissing off the general public and causing them to ignore anything of substance that you have to say, sure. Pushing people away from your cause is not a good strategy if you want to effect change.