fosstulate

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Has it occurred to you that commerce might see advantage in weaponizing the Streisand effect?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Thanks for posting, OP.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I hear you, but with traction comes the corporate interest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's naive to think the model will die. In fact it's merely getting new operators and beneficiaries in the form of Google, Disney, Warner, etc.

The state and commerce will always vie and co-operate for control of the public's media access and consumption patterns, with an eye to market captivity.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago

So you're telling me the model cannot consistently run at a profit, even through it relies on a massive unpaid labour force.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's not the look of a bigot, it's the look of a man who's fed up with low-rent posturing clickbait. The look of someone who got a Salon article entitled What your household's toothpaste preferences say about White Fragility™ that he knows will be paygated or cookienoticed after two seconds' scrolling.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Telemetry, advertising, etc. are ultimately web page elements that I can download or block. The paid offering might have a TOS that requires acceptance of such, but those terms do not bind me as a free, public visitor. I think Youtube is doing its best to have people buy its nonsense argument, as part of a wider campaign to shift the public's understanding of web site versus web service. For what it's worth, I don't see them ever putting their money where their mouth is by pay-walling the whole site.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Alternative frontends don't fall under piracy by any definition. Youtube's servers are publicly accessible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To acknowledge the truth of what you said but offer an explanation. It's a fly in the ointment, if you like. No one wants to live in a low-trust society.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Public listing of grocery retail is a key cause of these problems. Listed food has the wrong owners, by virtue of being listed in the first place, and they're pursuing their priorities at the direct expense of shoppers and suppliers.

If you suspect you're being fucked on a favourite purchase category, direct your custom elsewhere (Aldi, Costco, family run) and review your consumption rate. If I see unreasonable price rises, I know I'm buying less as a rule.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Those traits are pitfalls of being a high trust society.

view more: ‹ prev next ›