• 1 Post
  • 21 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle

  • What do you mean by direct-to-content-producer? I can’t find it on Google. Are you suggesting the viewers pay the content creator and the content creator pays YouTube for hosting?

    Subscription is a reasonable funding method. It’s also reasonably priced. I think the bigger problem is companies that refuse to offer subscriptions, because Facebook knows no one is dumb enough to pay $15-20 a month, but that is what they make off the ads so offering the service for anything less would cause them to lose money. Merely offering the subscription shows users how much Facebook really makes off of them.

    YouTube is also very generous with how much they spit revenue with creators. I don’t like that they exist as a monopoly, but at least they aren’t parasites like the other half of the web.




  • This was actually the original idea of non-fungible tokens, but because you need special legislation to tie an object to this digital receipt (there is nothing legally tying one thing to the other), they just skipped over it completely and said the NFT itself was the commodity, which is why they could only do it for digital art with the a web link. (we could, for example, see this more useful for a title to a car or house)

    In fact, many NFTs don’t even contain any language about copyright or licensing, they don’t even attempt to pretend that the NFT holder owns the copyright. The owner of the NFT in these cases only owns the NFT, and not the copyright. Of course, you have to transfer the copyright separately from transferring the NFT, which makes this whole thing redundant for buying/selling on secondary markets, but they could have at least tried to pretend they could.



  • The people that can actually make him look like an idiot refuse to interview or debate him (don’t want to “platform” him, among other concerns), so he looks like a genius to people that don’t know better.

    People also seem to be concerned that he can bullshit his way through a debate by overwhelming people with fake facts. This is completely false, I’ve seen clips where he gets light pushback from relatively neutral speakers and he immediately folds or says something stupid.

    People need to stop trying to sweep him under the rug, it only makes him look more authoritative and convincing to dumb people.



  • DELETE THIS POST 😂 Hey this isn’t twitter, but you can try 👏 adding 👏 claps 👏 between 👏 words 👏 if you think it will help.

    Is a valid point to say they haven’t done anything honorable. Maybe my post is the equivalent of saying a murderer is honorable for telling the cops where he put the bodies? I like to give credit where credit is due, but I can see your point. Anyways, I feel bad that you have been downvoted to zero, I’ll give you an upvote.









  • Just a friendly reminder: The Stanford Prison Experiment was not an experiment. There was no control group, there wasn’t even proper procedures set up. It was just some professor off his rocker that had a dumb idea, made shit up as he went along, forced the outcome, then publicized the results. People always compare it to Milgram. This idiot can’t hold a candle to Milgram.



  • Voting blocks are very successful at getting what they want, but they can only do that if their threat to not vote for the party in question is taken seriously. The NRA doesn’t get what it wants because it commits to always vote Republican no matter what.

    I get your point of view, and my argument is overly idealized and difficult to implement, but I genuinely don’t see it working without the ability to use your vote to negotiate. Besides money, it is the only thing they care about. I’m not American, but from Canada, and I can tell you from an outsider’s perspective your two-party system looks completely dysfunctional. We basically have a three/four-party system for our federal gov and I’d take that any day over a two-party system. Granted America controls the reserve currency and the world army, so it was bound to consume itself at some point, maybe it doesn’t matter how it is set up.



  • If voting was done once and never again, you would be correct. However, there is voting every two years, if people voted in a blocked and the Dems lost, they would be forced to change their policy to attract back lost voters. They have no incentive to change if you openly admit you will always vote blue.

    Of course, this also requires that the messaging is clear, last time the Dems lost they blamed it on Russians and deplorables rather than the fact that they have totally sold out the working class.

    It’s difficult to pull off no doubt, but it would actually work at reforming the system.