It’s the thing I use to apply edge trim on chipboard counter tops.

Why are you asking me?

That message is written by some 24 year old who gets paid to do 3 social media posts each day on behalf of said bank but is in no way involved in running the bank itself. Don’t follow Chase on twitter and block people who retweet their posts on Lemmy. That should help a little.

Sure. And while they wait for that miracle they can also take steps towards personally easing their situation. Broken banking sector is not the sole reason for people’s financial struggles.

…or spend less.

This has nothing to do with mass shootings.

…and it’s the bank’s fault and theres nothing the individual could do differently? I don’t buy that. Complaining about it on the internet is not going to help, that’s for sure. I know several people like this and they’re all notoriously bad with finances. Many of them even earn more than I do but they spend it all on expensive new cars, getting the newest smartphones, TVs and tech, frequent vacations abroad, homes that are way out of their budget, streaming services, clothes, ordering takeout etc.

What the hell are people supposed to do if the minimum spending to survive is already too much for their meager income?

If one can’t cut their spending then they need to increase their income. Making coffee at home instead of getting starbucks, cooking instead of eating out and not taking a cab to travel short distances is all good financial advice.

I’m not. What am I missing here?

How is it the bank’s fault if your balance is low? I don’t get what’s the point of this. Your balance is low because your spending matches or exceeds your income.

There may be others reasons to interview Bill Gates about AI than the fact that he’s rich and famous.

If this isn’t the most cynical message forum then I don’t know what is.

What’s minor in this case? The fact that it’s not specified makes me think we’re speaking of a 17 year old.

So I assume that since it was withdrawn, this doesn’t set a precedent and it’s only a matter of time untill they try to sneak it thru with a different name.

I must be watching different videos than the people complaining about YouTube comments. The ones I see are virtually all positive.

I agree but there’s also an add-on for that

Where does the profit come from if someone who doesn’t deal with ads is forced to watch an ad?

The creator gets paid for people watching the ads, not for buying the product. For the most part the point of ads is to increase brand recognition which in turn increases sales. Ads work wether you think they do or not. It’s among the most studied economic fields. There’s a good reason companies spend a ton of money on advertising. More people seeing ads = more sales. I too like to tell myself a story about how I’m immune to ads but I know I’m not.

Data-invasive, targeted advertising is superfluous and needs to die.

I agree. The alternative is paying for the service eg. subscribtion based business model.

Targeted or not - I’m not going to watch ads. If it’s a bad service like Instagram I’m just going to stop using it but in the case of YouTube if they manage to make adblocking sufficiently difficult and inconvenient then I’m going to buy premium. I can’t blame them for wanting to get rid of freeriders. If I was them I would probably want to too. Blocking ads is like piracy; I participate in it but it cannot be morally justified. I’m effectively stealing.

I’m not informed enough to know how peertube works but running it is not free either. Nor is running a lemmy instance. Lemm.ee for example has a limit even on the size of images you can upload despite the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude less bandwith and storage requiring than videos.

Ad-revenue is literally how content creators get paid. If you’re using an adblocker (like me) then you’re freeriding. They’re not getting any money from us viewing their videos.

Nobody is forcing anyone to watch ads. That’s the alternative available to people who don’t want to pay. The other alternative is premium membership. Which ever you choose makes money for the creators. Blocking ads doesn’t.

I hate ads just as much as the next guy but this mentality of expecting to get content for free is ridiculous. That’s unbelieveably narrow sighted and self-centered thinking. If subscribtion based business model was the norm instead of ads-based then we’d have none of the issues that come with targeted advertising. On the other hand if one thinks google is evil company and don’t want to give them money then stop using their products. Damn hypocrites…

Content creators get nothing from a subscription To YouTube premium.

This is not true. If you’re a free user they’re getting a share of the ad-revenue. If you’re a premium user they’re getting share of the membership fee. The more videos you watch from a creator the more they earn.

Source

Also. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to run a video hosting platform? Especially at the scale of YouTube. There’s a good reason Lemmy doesn’t have videos.

You’re not paying to not see ads. You’re paying for the content on the platform. You can pay either by watching ads or by paying for premium.