So it’s literally to prevent 9 year olds going 50 on an e-bike. Seems fair to me.

You’re talking about the same type of people that think the earth is flat. These people don’t think about race, they see a mystery and try to see their agenda in it.

I usually find what I’m looking for, but after 5 pages of AI generated filler content filled with adds. Quite often I’ll need to search 3 of those pages to actually find one that goes into enough detail to provide the help I need. ea when im stuck on a quest in a game.

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.

Well if someone causes a dangerous situation, why not both?

The ones who keep healthcare for everyone, have guns under control and keep most companies privacy policy in check. We don’t point at one politician to do the job for us, it’s at least a hundred.

Just ban them outright. What’s the point? You want to move things around, get a bus

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.

In my opinion this entire debate is not political at all but is simply made to be a political statement because people don’t understand it.

Having someone forbid the use of cheese in video games because that person doesn’t like cheese is just never going to happen. If cheese comes out to be an extreme health hazard like smoking it can become political but if the only argument is “because I don’t like it” you are always going to be wrong.

Your arguing about taste and feelings. There is no point to it, as there is nothing to convince. At that point you are just telling someone their taste or feeling is wrong.

But for some reason people think they can influence someone else’s own feelings about how they feel when they get addressed as their birth gender. And for some reason it is made into a political problem because of how strongly people think they have to have control over this. It doesn’t affect them, and the only possible outcome is that a minority will suppress their emotions. There are no competing values in any way.

I don’t like cheese, but you won’t hear me bitching about people eating cheese next to me in a restaurant even if I don’t like the smell. And you especially won’t see me making this political, because that is so incredibly selfish and ignorant that it wouldn’t even be something I’d ever consider.

How are these people not seeing that they are actively trying to censor shit with the shyte excuse “keep politics out of my games”, and then turn around and yell censorship as soon as people ignore their bigoted crap.

You don’t need to answer, it’s rhetorical.

Well people turning out to be mostly idiots didn’t help