pjhenry1216 @ pjhenry1216 @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

938

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wow. I immediately assume a lower IQ for anyone who uses that word.

Even if industry changed, no, meat production should still go away. It's still bad. There's no acceptable level of bad we should just ignore. This is discounting the entire ethical points of animal cruelty inherent in the system.

I didn't say we should not fight for better regulation. I did say we shouldn't give up doing our best. If you disagree with this, you're just arguing you shouldn't be held responsible for anything. With that attitude, why would you expect a company to not say the same especially if it'll cost them so much more. You're depicted exactly everything wrong with the industry.

I mean, there's a difference between targeted ads which rely on a lot more data versus sponsored content which honestly, I didn't even know what based on preferences. It is fairly hodgepodge and I figured everyone saw the same thing. It never really interested me so I turned it off.

It's light on details as to how much preferences really play into those sponsored articles. Which you can turn off.

But targeted ads that are worth money require a lot more of a model. Advertisers won't pay for potshot ads if they can get better targeting elsewhere. Advertising simply isn't a good model.

You were agreeing with someone that said it led them to the opposite conclusion of the point the author wanted to make. That would require you to ignore those points or at the very least admit privacy isn't important.

When you said "yup" to a claim, it means you agree with the claim. You didn't simply only say you disliked the author's writing style and felt their focus wasn't properly targeted on the correct points.

Mitigating some substantial percentage of that population growth would be one way to better environmental conditions in 2050. It would also have more impact than virtually any other climate policy. (More on that later.)

From your own sources.

Edit: it's kind of weird your source for "it's a myth" is an article saying it's not but that talking about it just leads a bunch of people to the wrong conclusions about the speaker due to poor past examples.

What speech is determined to be against the law.

Jfc people. Context. If I had a nickel for everyone who didn't get it, I'd have 10 cents, but it's weird it happened twice.

You let me know when you find a system that analyzes your data locally and chooses an ad to show without letting anyone know anything. Even just delivering the ad is violating a level of privacy because they know it targets you at the very least. But beyond that, targeted ads require statistics to build to know how to target. You need data to build a model. You can't build that without sharing.

You can't respect privacy by violating it. Just because you're ok with the amount of violation doesn't make it ok.

I'm fine with blocking things on someone else's site. I'm not ok with injecting things on someone else's site.

Defining what speech is against the law. Out of context it's humorous, but I would have thought it was obvious in context.

Given what I had said about it, the interpretation made sense. I already apologized. There's no need to correct me after the author already did. It adds nothing but trying to be condescending.

For how long this is, it's very confusing. Some links also didn't work. This reads like someone who is way overly invested in their reddit account though. Like, I doubt you'll find any lawyer in the US who will go to bat over you getting banned. Privately owned (as in not government-owned, so regardless of any possible IPOs in the future) companies have freedom of speech which gives them the right to censor whoever and however they want. We don't need to like it, but it is what it is. I'm personally ok with them being allowed to censor whatever they want because I don't want to get into the mess of the government defining what speech is or isn't against the law. I'd be maybe ok with drawing a line on incitement and/or active assistance to violate laws or another's rights, but that's about it. But there is no right to have speech or say what you want on someone else's platform.

Does this make reddit dangerous? Absolutely not.

You did learn a lesson.

Don't pour yourself into work that someone else owns. You can easily lose it.

It sounds like it was a harsh lesson for you. I sympathize. But I don't know what else you expect from a for-profit corporation.

You're on an alternative. They already exist. You're also preaching to people who already agree alternatives are important.

Edit: added a word for clarity because some people can't carry context from one sentence to another.

Overpopulation is a climate issue and I would argue the mindset of trying to promote owns legacy by having more than one, let alone more than two children is definitely something that needs to be addressed. The climate impact is real. You can't just be like "I deserve to spread my seed as far as I can."

Knowing the cost of something is important and having children does have an impact on everyone else.

Sorry, I thought you were saying it's based on Firefox. Just realized it was an attempt at the Wendy's meme.

Are you suggesting messaging doesn't have dominant players or that Google didn't integrate with XMPP and then eventually break compatibility and some folks argue set back XMPP in mindshare and marketshare.

XMPP is essentially an open standard where you can host your own relays. The concept was to fight against iMessage and Google Chat and Blackberry, etc. It was just as popular as lemmy/Kbin is now. Hell, Mastodon dwarfs Lemmy as a whole and isn't under attack.

There's just no real evidence this is a concerted effort to ruin the fediverse for corporate gain. It's much cheaper and more profitable to exploit it. It just isn't worth it right now. Meta sees an opportunity but mainly because it wanted to try and exploit Xwitter's current state. That's why it's not even on the fediverse yet. It's not that concerned.

Occam's Razor.

Edit: added clarification (emphasis added to highlight the change).

My bad. Not sure why I thought that. Still. Firefox is still a better alternative in my opinion.

Just ignore everything I said here. I misinterpreted stuff. My bad.

But the data collection sounds like it's counter to its supposed goals. Multiple campaigns have been discussed that just make it believe they don't actually care about privacy considering all the ways they keep trying to do stuff is counter to that. Why stay? Tor Browser is available. Hell, Firefox itself is already able to take you pretty far and extensions can do the rest.

Why make the sacrifice of your personal data? Like, how many attempts at collecting personal data do you need to have occur before you realize it's always been their goal?

I mean, regardless of whether it sounds like afterthoughts, it kind of sounds like the ulterior motive for Brave is entirely counter to its purported intent. Why ignore it just because of something unrelated? Sounds like the exact same issue people complain about the author.

I mean, there's simply just Firefox. Which is apparently not the basis for Brave. It does sound like Brave collects data so it still seems shady.

Edit: could have sworn brave was built on Firefox. It's not. It's chromium. Which in my opinion counts against it as I'd rather avoid a monopoly considering how much control Google has over chromium and the inherent biases Google has.

I literally quoted you. You said it needs to be first. Do you know what that phrase means?

And this information is literally 6 years old even and the information itself is older than that. What gradual time to teach this do you want?

You sound like a company saying you can't regulate now, give us time first.

You're right, but it's looking at individual action. Everyone giving up meat would obviously outweigh one person taking a flight. But everyone not taking flights would obviously make a tremendously bigger difference as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm vegan and proponent of veganism, but you can't argue that everyone giving up meat is a fair comparison to one person giving up a flight.