ada

The airport “Marriott” in Santiago de Chile. That place was a hole, and a tiny one at that.

If it we weren’t Google, I’d be ok with paying too. As it is, the content creators will have to get by with their individual sponsorships, rather than getting ad revenue from me.

There is no tolerable amount of ads, because not only are they an awful experience, they explicitly drive user hostile growth and decisions in the future (ie enshitification).

I used to pay for YouTube to avoid ads, before I got sick of Google and refused to give them any more money. Now I use a pihole and a browser based adblocker, as well as 3rd party front ends, because fuck Google. I don’t give a shit if I’m denying them income.

There’s no one size fits all answer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Women are around twice as likely to attempt suicide than men in western countries, but men are more likely to succeed by a large margin. It’s scary

Archaea and Everything Else (I can’t remember the other domain)

I think that’s just you. I’m like the exact opposite of that

It’s entirely possible to host an instance that doesn’t require emails to sign up. Blahaj lemmy and piefed don’t for example. We don’t have a spam problem though, because we require manual approvals of new accounts. Lack of email verification is only a problem when it’s combined with open signup

I make an exception to that rule for the /c/superbowl. I love seeing a bunch of owls suddenly appear in my feed :)

Exactly. I’m not running to chrome with it’s defanged ad blockers and Google stink.

People see the same ideas echoed over and over again, and eventually it shapes how they think. That’s why regular, everyday people, people who aren’t even political start parroting right-wing talking points. Even my kids and their friends are saying this stuff.

You are 100% correct on this part.

The problem is, arguing with them magnifies that effect, it doesn’t challenge it.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t push back. I don’t mean smile and agree, or just ignore them. Deplatforming works, protests work, proud visibility works, civil disobedience works. Responding negatively works. Making it so that there is a social cost to being a transphobe works.

But debating them isn’t any of those things. Debating them is engaging with them, and in the act of arguing with you, they actually solidify the beliefs they already hold, and this is especially true of heavily polarised issues. Here’s some research on it https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01623-8 (PDF link), and an article that goes in to the topic a bit https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-is-it-that-even-proven-facts-cant-change-some-peoples-minds

As much as it feels right to argue with them, all you are doing is strengthening their already held beliefs when you do. It might feel like its helping, but it isn’t. You’ll read my response, and you’ll likely go “screw that, you’re wrong, I’m going to keep arguing”. And that’s the exact effect I’m talking about at play. Every time you argue with someone, they have that same internal reaction to your comments, no matter what you say, or how strongly you believe it.

So you allow them to influence other people with their ideas?

No, absolutely not. I run instances to give gender diverse folk safe spaces. I ban transphobes the instant they appear, I don’t debate them. Offline, I’m visible, active and proud. I am an volunteer at my local parkrun, I’ve spoken openly with people at my workplace, I’ve hosted a queer community radio show, I host a vodcast, and I used to be active in organising events for my local gender diverse community. Because what gets people to change their minds, is an emotional connection with the group they’re targeting. When they start to see us as people, just the same as them, then they start to make choices that aren’t harmful to us, and they start to wind back their own arguments.

Pushing back is incredibly important, but debating them isn’t effective. Like most people, when confronted with debate points in regards to a topic they hold on to for emotional reasons, they will shift goal posts, and only see the things that validate what they already believe, whilst ignoring the things that challenge it. When they get to the point where they’re ready to challenge their ideas (because their emotional position has shifted) then, lots of the talking points you would normally debate become relevant, but by that stage, it’s a discussion, not a debate.

I drink lots of water, but I add coffee…

You can’t rationally debate someone out of a position they didn’t reach through rational consideration.

You can’t opt out of capitalism. You can opt out of not funding Rowling

We bypass the issue. We use DJI mini mics, which allow you to connect multiple mics to a single base receiver, and that receiver appears as a stereo sound source.

like madlad, woosh, etc

I haven’t used Reddit for years, and I have no idea about those terms. If they’re a Reddit thing, I don’t recognise them.

Lemmy is also less tolerant of debate bros.

So yeah, they’re different

As I said, if not voluntarily giving money to or making excuses for someone who will use that money to hurt people is too much to ask of someone, then their context and intent is quite clear.

Including yours.

“I grew up with Harry Potter and loved it and I’m interested to see the new [whatever]” is not equivalent to promoting transphobia.

It is equivalent, because in this case, it is literally promoting transphobia. One of the worlds leading transphobes will directly benefit from the profits this show makes, and will directly turn those profits against dismantling the rights of trans folk.

This isn’t an analogy, it’s not dramatic license, or over exaggeration.

You cannot make a black and white determination like that without context and intent.

If you know she will hurt trans people with the money she makes, and you do things that continue to make her money (which includes just advocating for continued consumption of her work), it is black and white, and the context and intent are quite visible.

By itself, it doesn’t mean someone is transphobic. But it does mean that at the very least, personal nostalgia is more important to that person than the harm their actions cause. And that is plenty of intent and context.

I don’t know, maybe they have a specific agreement with Patreon or something. But in general, that’s how Patreon like services work with YouTube