Give me freedom from advertising or give me death.

Because shut up. /s

But really though, the entire concept of using humans as batteries is absurd. Don't think too hard about it, just enjoy the movie.

My favorite part about those years is that we didn't have to care what Joe Rogan thought.

I can decide to turn off nonsense podcasts. I can't decide not to get shot if someone is shooting at me.

A better metaphor might be screaming "that guy's got a gun" in a crowded theatre. I might be able to ignore it, but lots of people are going to believe it and act accordingly, and their reaction is probably not going to be good for anyone.

Waterproofing is a lame excuse that I won't accept from these manufacturers. It may be not as easy as just permanently gluing the thing together, but it's definitely possible to have a sealed battery compartment.

These are some very pretty words that express ideas without much self-reflection on why the ideas might be bad.

I mean, I suppose you did say it yourself that you can't trust the US government... but why would you trust ANY government? You know why I trust Google more than any government? I understand Google's motivations ($$$). Put something into the hands of government and suddenly that thing is burdened by the desires of every politician and their special interest financiers.

"Place it in the hands of something like the UN" would mean some international body I assume. Comprised of and led by whom exactly? And also, who would fund the thing? You suggest nationalization, so.. taxpayers? Sure, here's your $99/year Degooglebase access ~~fee~~ tax I guess? And beyond just making sure there's enough money to keep the lights on, we need to make sure there's enough money to pay creators. After all, YouTube isn't just a library. It's an economy larger than some countries and there would be consequences to destabilizing that economy. People aren't just posting content for the love of the shared experience.

Please don't take what I'm saying here to be a defense of Google. Google is a shitty company for so many reasons. But advocating that nationalization of YouTube is just a horrifically bad idea in such manner as it was presented.

But - all is not lost. First: for the creators you enjoy - find ways to support them other than Google. Make it possible for them to continue when YouTube stops being lucrative enough.

Second: find, use, and advocate for the use of alternative services. There is no single site that is going to be able to replace YouTube. It simply isn't going to happen unless PornHub wants to step up to the game and create their own SFW site YouTube-killer. They have the infrastructure and capacity to host and share absolutely massive amounts of video and have the business capabilities to accept income and pass it on to creators on a large scale. But that's an entirely different discussion.

Best to look at things differently. Like the Fediverse and the internet itself, it might be better off if the platform were distributed.

You mean the always-on GPS-enabled internet-connected microphone and camera which is also likely Bluetooth and NFC beaconing and contains all of my most personal data including my name, contacts, unencrypted chats facilitated by major cell phone carriers, photos, emails, and other personal files which are also likely synced with a cloud service operated by major multi-national corporations, and also stores biometric data such as facial recognition, fingerprints, time spent sleeping, and even heart rate and number of steps taken assuming you have "fitness" features enabled?

With those last couple items, these massive companies that regularly share data with law enforcement are literally tracking your every step and nearly every beat of your heart.

Well don't worry about that, I've got Express VPN.

A significant problem isn't just the lack of housing, it's the lack of affordable housing. Builders keep building single family homes in spread out suburbs which is problematic in its own way. But not everyone could afford those homes regardless of whether they are buying or renting.

Investors owning single family homes is a big problem, the bigger problem is exacerbated but not explicitly caused by that. Affordable housing simply isn't available in places where it's needed. That's why people say we need more homes.

There's a reason that doesn't appear on their site or in their docs any more. It was a canary clause.

And the capabilities of whoever he has cooking the books for that particular transaction.

There's an armorer who was completely derelict in her duties. She's been charged with involuntary manslaughter. It was specifically her job not to let this happen.

From a legal standpoint, I sort of get it. One risk of the fediverse is that data is cached locally from federated servers. That could put server owners in legal jeopardy for hosting illegal content. However, if the server is actively moderated and owners respond responsibly to take down requests, they should be okay - in the US at least, and assuming current protections for service providers remain intact.

I think a good option (if technically feasible) could be to have the choice to de-cache communities or servers that are questionable and make it so that data is transmitted live from the federated server when requested by a client. That would add load to both the local and federated servers though, especially if volume is high.