tacticalsugar @ tacticalsugar @lemmy.blahaj.zone

transgander (`h o n k`)\

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

58

Joined

12 mo. ago

You're spending a lot of time scrutinizing the actions of a man who was just tortured for being gay. What are you trying to argue?

I'm just gonna copy and paste a previous post.

Not everyone can afford to not take work. Queer people are more likely to be fired and refused jobs because they're queer, and that frequently means needing to take horrible jobs in horrible places just to survive.

Surely there are other job opportunities at other places that don’t think that way.

There really aren't. In the past year every queer person I know has been fired and/or severely abused at their job and now they can't find new work. I get that it's hard for a lot of people to consider literally being unhireable, but that's what queers are experiencing right now.

Not everyone can afford to not take work. Queer people are more likely to be fired and refused jobs because they're queer, and that frequently means needing to take horrible jobs in horrible places just to survive.

but does he really think

I don't mean this in a snarky way, try waterboarding yourself for 5 seconds and then consider if you would be in any way rational after sustained torture. Torture fucks you up in horrible ways, and I don't think we should be criticizing this man for how he reacted to the injustice he faced.

Do you think there are circumstances where queer people deserve to be tortured? He moved there for work, but your victim blaming would be just as gross even if he did it for fun.

That's my gender. I didn't pay for this clipart.

I don't have links because they get banned pretty quickly, but over the last week I've seen maybe 4 or 5 examples of lemmy users referencing "the race card" (derogatory) in response to others talking about systemic racist violence.

If you'd rather have any amount of bad journalism over trying to fix things, then we hold such fundamentally different values that I don't actually know how to talk to you. You're also moving the goalposts a lot, you seem like you have your mind made up that somehow ads promote good journalism, which is just not true.

And the direct pay model has plenty of audience capture or the well known yellow journalism issues

This issue already exists and has for as long as modern sensationalist news has existed - decades.

IDK it seems to me like ABC of the 1980s was more trustworthy than cable news or social media of the 21st century.

You don't actually think that, you just weren't actually around for the media of that era so you don't know what it was like. You're blinded by rose-colored glasses. I'll remind you that Rupert Murdoch built his media empire in the 1980s, and Murdoch's one of the empires currently destroying media. There's also the bit where Reagan couped multiple countries and the USAmerican public still thinks it never happened because it wasn't covered.

Browsers of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our ads!

A lot of people cope by convincing themselves they're innately "better" than some outgroup. For some people it's music taste, for some people it's skin color, etc. A lot of it is subtle bigotry learned during childhood from media and parents. Elon grew up in apartheid South Africa with a father who owned part of an emerald mine, I feel like that could explain a lot.

There's also something to be said about the addictive nature of conspiracy theories. Elon was always a "wacky guy" or whatever but there was definitely a point where he went from a typical rich dick to whatever the fuck this is and he seems like he's pretty far down the "aliens built the pyramids" to "jewish people run the world" pipeline.

transcription: @elonmusk tweets "There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye" about an article titled "The Awful Truth: Paul Pelosi Was Drunk Again, And In a Dispute With a Male Prostitute Early Friday..." from smobserved.com

Idk the answer, but ads did give us more less biased news in broadcast news for a few decades.

Ad companies have lists of banned topics, effectively leading to news organizations being unable to talk about those topics without losing ad revenue. It's called keyword blocking, so you're actually getting biased news because of ads. It's a well-known advertising strategy to just avoid controversial topics entirely.

Sir this is a wendy's

We're talking about whether or not it's dehumanizing to constantly other trans people in a way that doesn't apply to cis people. You kinda seem like you just want an argument though.

That's not what we're talking about.

Every youtuber I've watched recently has opened a patreon and asked people to donate there because youtube ad revenue is worth almost nothing. Every small journalism site I've seen asks for donations, and even the big ones admit their ad income doesn't pay the bills.

Sometimes it sucks knowing that you're indirectly removing revenue from someone. But personally, I prefer my time, attention-span, privacy, and security over giving one ten thousandth of a USA cent to someone. I started using an ad blocker because flashing advertisements were giving me headaches. I kept using them because autoplaying video ads were sucking up all the bandwidth that I was paying for. I continue to use ad blockers today because every single ad is either a scam, malware, or some weirdo far-right political pundit telling me gays are bad. Sorry to the independent journalists relying on ad revenue, but you gotta diversify and get revenue from a source more stable than the adware industry.

The corporate internet you are talking is more about sites like Facebook, insta, reddit etc who doesn’t view the content posters are creators and they definitely doesn’t share profits. I am not talking about this type.

Youtube is owned by google, and is definitely part of the corporate web. Most news sites are part of the corporate web, being owned by just a handful of companies or politicians. The vast majority of sites you would consider small content creators are most likely part of the corporate web. In fact, I haven't seen a single non-corporate website that serves ads.

When I say I want the corporate web to die, I'm talking about seeing places like the fediverse, tilde sites, and neocities sites thriving. If facebook and google die and all that's left is a few sites written by weird mentally ill queers who whost blogs on gemini and gopher, I'd be very okay with that.

But as much as we hate ads, they fuel the internet. Without them, the internet wouldn’t be what it is today.

The corporate web wouldn't be what it is today, the internet would be fine. This is an important distinction to make. The internet is run by a bunch of nerds going to "internet peering conventions" and paying for BGP cross-connects in data centers. They would be fine, because ad-blockers don't hurt them.

The corporate web, on the other hand, would die. I'm very okay with that. In fact, I see that as a feature, not a bug. I hate the corporate web, and I think the world would be better without facebook and google creating monopolies on communication. But either way, if the only way technology can survive is ads (and it's not the only way), then let it die.

So should we gatekeep ad blockers and enjoy an ad-free internet as a minority? It’s not like they know what they’re missing.

lolno. We should be doing everything we can to protect ourselves and those around us from malware, surveillance capitalism, and predatory advertising. Even if you don't care about other people, herd immunity to malware and surveillance capitalism are very real things. It's a lot harder to get infected by malware on an immunized network, and it's a lot harder for facebook to surveil you (remember shadow profiles?) when nobody around you is having their every step tracked.

Consider why those people don't even know about extensions or ad-blocking. The web was built to be extensible, but ad companies (google) have done everything they can to keep people from realizing they can just change websites however they want, including blocking ads. People aren't ignorant about privacy because they want to be, they're ignorant because a lot of money and manipulation has gone into keeping them unaware and unempowered.

Solidarity and support are the only real weapons we have in the war against surveillance and malvertising. If not for those around you, then at least do it for the sake of your own privacy.

He talks about it openly. "Falling birthrates" and "the great replacement" are dog whistles for "white genocide". They're talking about how "the white race" is going to "lose" because the white people are outnumbered by people of color.

You cant get that across when you just say his daughter.

That's why you read the whole article, not just the headline

Headlines don't typically contain the entire context. You have to actually read the article for the why.