44
You explain it to normies by saying it's a link aggregator and discussion site and microblogger, like R/T. What they are really asking for, however, isn't a rundown of federation mechanisms but a rationale for the fed itself. 'How does it work?' really means 'What are the crucial differences and why do they matter?' So a good answer to that must talk about ownership, the profit motive, user friendliness, the perils of consolidation, etc.
AI filtering of Reddit isn't the way. The way is leaving the platform. This is beginning to remind me of the 'decrapify Windows' YT videos that offer 20-step multi-application guides for getting a tolerable experience, instead of explaining how to install Mac/Linux. Time spent on a rotten foundation is wasted.
So you're telling me the model cannot consistently run at a profit, even through it relies on a massive unpaid labour force.
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.
Alternative frontends don't fall under piracy by any definition. Youtube's servers are publicly accessible.
The elephant in the room is that parental controls development is a total wasteland, and has been for years. There's no money in it. FAMAG is actively hostile to it and phone OEMs haven't got a dog in the race and already contend with razor-thin margins. It's one dimension of a broader political problem of digitization that smarter legislators and politicians have surely noticed by now, which is that unlike human beings, users increasingly don't have any rights or agency worth a damn, and are treated with contempt.
I like that a grassroots movement has remembered that parenting should be at the heart of children's technology access, but I fear such groups' 'useful idiot' value to authoritarian elements up to the same old tricks.
Press releases like this are corporate signaling to US Congress that they would like some lawfare and are willing to pay for it.
Pirate streaming growth itself doesn't 'threaten legal services' as TF suggests. Any threat that arises is created by industry's market response. It comes back to margins. Netflix could decide overnight to invest in a long-term 'hearts and minds' approach that includes a quality platform user experience free of hostile design, non-discrimination amongst devices, relaxed household access rules, attentive customer service, commitment to finishing programming properly, improved stream quality, etc. Becoming the Valve of streaming represents an expenditure increase, though. You're now a lower margin business with a very sticky and content customer base. That's not a story industry wants to tell its investors, knowing they will respond with 'you should be petitioning for bills that enable more market captivity'.
They do the right thing only as a last resort, because the right thing is expensive.
I hope red and blue both find success in this segment. Ideally the strengthened APU share of the market exerts pressure on publishers to properly optimize their games instead of cynically offloading the compute cost onto players.
- 2025: Search removed. Spend a decade crippling the function, then claim the usage data support getting rid of it!
- 2027: Expiring updates. Juice those watch numbers with a new artificial scarcity measure. Marvel Bullshit 49 Theatrical Trailer, available for seven days only! Featuring AI Robin Williams and a Mr B_ast guest ad!
- 2028: Web Environment Integrity inserted. Hand warmer sales crater as mobile viewers relish their new handset functionality.
Zero unrecoverable freeze events per month
The money was actually well spent because the will of Australian electors was ratified. It's a snarky point yes, but one worth making.
view more: next ›
fosstulate
joined 1 year ago