I mean, the guy is all knowing. That means he knew, back when he created Adam, that this moment would come. He could have changed 1000 things. Yet he chose this particular order of things leading to the ‘sacrifice’ of Jesus.

There’s just so many plot holes when you make a fella omniscient.

I’d guess that’s sooner than needed and that means more waste

I’m sorry you are getting downvoted, because technically you are right. TikTok will never claim to aim at children or advertise as such because they know they can’t provide a safe environment and will open themselves up to lawsuits.

You keep coming back to the circlejerk, but i do genuinely want to understand what you want me to provide. If I’m wrong, I want to know why so I can learn from it and that’s not sarcasm.

get plenty of healthcare because I live in a country with universal healthcare. It’s the shitty ones that don’t have it that usually have to deal with the concept of “non-profit” healthcare, which rapidly becomes stained by the for the for-profit industry surrounding it.

This is my entire point though, it’s not shitty by design, it’s the situation around it that can create a toxic environment that promotes abuse. You stated initially that non-profits are worse by design and exploitative, and all I’m saying is that this is not true in the entire world.

To emphasize what I mean, you state “it’s all shit” and then go on to say “but only in a country with shit healthcare”. This is exactly what I’m trying to say.

non-profits are worse by design, being both a tax write-off and deliberately exploitative entities

They work worse and act as an excuse not to offer universal care

I have universal healthcare

You keep going on about me providing proof but you are the one making a bold statement. You disprove the one example you provide because that’s clearly caused by the healthcare situation in general in that country.

So how do you expect me to provide proof of healthy and normal non-profit companies not being evil? That’s no news, there’s no article saying “company is ethical and normal”.

You claim that non-profit companies are exploitative by design, but any proof you provide will always be anecdotal. I told you from personal experience that I have seen multiple that are just fine. My proof will also always be anecdotal. But I’m not the one making a claim about the entire system of non-profit organisations, I’m saying that although it might sometimes be exploitative, I know it’s not always from personal experience.

As you’re generalising the entire system of non-profit organisations, the burden of proof is on you.

I’m sorry but your comment confuses me a bit. You specifically link to a US based article, and mention how bad non-profit organisations are. One of the things you mention as being bad about it (and why it doesn’t work) is because you don’t get healthcare.

Then I mention that this is not true for at least some other regions of the world, and I know that from personal experience, but now your saying I’m wrong? Or do you want me to share where I work?

I must just be misunderstanding your comment for sure, so please elaborate what you mean.

Has anyone ever told you the world is bigger than the US? Because it is, and I’m from there. That’s why healthcare isn’t a problem no matter what type of company I work in (if I even work). So maybe working non-profit in the US is unfair, but it is just as working for a normal organisation here in Europe.

I work in a non profit healthcare company and the first part of your statement is bullshit. No comment on the rest of it though but non profit can work just fine.

I don’t think trying to control is the best way of looking at it. There’s a hive mind about the fediverse that has a purpose, that wants to protect it as part of the identity of it. So a collective of instances banding together to keep that intact seems right up its alley.

Selfishness is part of the human condition. Tribes needed to fight over resources and mark their territory in order to keep the tribe alive. It’s in your instinct.

There have always been borders and territories, and there have always been fights and wars over it.

I don’t really see how your “if you don’t use it” policy applies here, and I also think the problem of this topic is easier than that.

Would you rather everyone can just walk into your house and take whatever they want? I for one am quite happy with the rules and morals we keep.

Those flags put up are often there to keep different cultures with different rules apart. It’s not as easy as erasing borders to have a free world. People are too selfish for that.

Sure, governments still steal all the time. Things are definitely not perfect, but that’s not related to someone stealing your lighter.

Why? Who made the rules about exchanging data? And it is an exchange of data for a service, it’s just not as obvious as you might want it to be. But nothing comes for free.

Hey I’m not saying I like the big company ethic scathing that’s been going on around the world, but it is how our society currently works.

They are. They provide you with a service for your data. It’s called YouTube. And if they don’t have a place to show you ads, the data is useless because no one will use it. It’s a closed loop.

And even if you don’t agree with it, it’s still a company selling a service and it can do whatever it wants to earn money from it. There’s nothing unethical about that.

Hell yeah they should, I’m not disputing that, but there’s so many here pretending like it’s somehow unethical for Google to fight against ad blockers, and I am arguing that.

Google’s main source of income is ads across the board, so fighting adblockers is certainly in their best interest

That’s fair

So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free? Why? What does Google owe us?

They only have the monopoly if we give it to them. I find their model fair, I use their service a lot. if they overprice me I’ll find another form of entertainment.

But you are right, people see YouTube as a necessity at this point. I’m trying to remind you, it’s not.

Yes, thank you! I’ve been downvoted previously in a topic similar to this one. I know change can be hard for some people but we always knew this would come sooner or later. A huge company wants to make money off their service and people here act as if it’s their right to find a way around it. It’s not. You were just lucky that there was one. Either find other entertainment or accept that you will get ads.

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Why is everyone so worked up about a huge company wanting to earn even more money, we know this is how it works, and we always knew this was coming. You tried to cheat the system and they’ve had enough.

Just you wait until insurance companies start charging you extra because you go to McDonalds once a month, or because you drive 5 miles over the speed limit sometimes. Or your ex wants revenge and pays someone on the dark web to get dirt on you so you lose custody of your kid. So much stuff can go wrong, and we shouldn’t take it lightly.

If you think you have nothing to hide, you’re not using your imagination enough.