sweetpotato

Yeah you are just the average piracy bad person got it. You just happen to use pirated content that’s what confused me and I unfortunately engaged. And yet you somehow still didn’t answer what exactly xmanager offers that Spotify premium doesn’t. Make it make sense, there are no extra features, only pirated premium features that are not the main function :)

It’s great seeing people defend the profits of oligarchs and monopolies and their ability to define what the standard experience is and what zero marginal cost feature can or cannot be paywalled. Which is definitely not entirely subjective, you are right to be so confident on that, you can get to tell us what the necessary functions of any app is.

This whole sequence does not make any sense. They are entitled for complaining about the standard experience, yet piracy is easy? What does that suppose to mean? If you think the standard experience is adequate then why resort to piracy? What is the entitlement referring to? According to you they can complain about the pricing and a lot of other features being paywalled, but the entitlement comes from the particular two examples they gave? Because you don’t think they are important, as if the important features to you are universal? I don’t get what the point of this is

I get that it’s stealing your data, what I don’t get is why it has to be accessible by search engines. First of all, most servers are private because they would rather be that way, they don’t want anyone joining or viewing the content. Second of all, the big search engines would have had the ability to gather all the available data and train AIs, give it to advertisers etc. I don’t want that. I don’t know what the Chinese are doing with the data, but I know what Google and Bing would be doing with it. Not everything on the internet has to be available to everyone, a lot of people want privacy. I get that ideally there shouldn’t be accounts with personal information required, but the rest I don’t agree with. Reddit and twitter are meant to be public, everyone on such social media is aware that anyone can see their comments and posts. But discord serves another purpose, it’s for private, closed communities.

I also don’t see what basic feature is charged. Everything charged has to do with functions that require a lot of storage/server space or stupid stickers and emojis. None of that is a basic feature and for the former I get why someone would charge.

I am not defending discord, I’d rather not use it, I know it aggressively steals our data and they probably plan on enshittifying it a lot more once they’ve taken out the competition completely, but that criticism I mentioned is not valid imo.

Wait what do the android updates have to do with Graphene? Does the phone need to still be supported by Google and android for Graphene to be secure and work?

For how long will the older pixel phones be supported? Is it worth it to buy a cheaper older model like pixel 6 and have graphene in it?

Cause I’m not giving more than 200-300 for a phone. I’ll stick to cheap android phones that lack nothing compared to expensive phones for my needs.

Only the fact that he is able to say shit like that out loud is a sign of a rotting society. People are ok with being their slaves

Google and apple you can let us worry about our security ourselves, thank you, though I’m sure you have our best interests in mind and only that

Yeah, it happens to Spotify mods as well. This isn’t good

Probably the countries they themselves have ruined

“Dark humour” enjoyers when I joke about the military…

So should we be fearing a new crash?

So we’re talking about de-extinction at a time when 70% of the planet’s biodiversity has been lost in the last 50 years?

You couldn’t make Home Alone 2 today because the creators would sue you for copyright infringement.

It’s as if they don’t want you to be able to get out of your house and socialise except for some paid time at private properties (cafes, restaurants etc). And no this isn’t just a US problem, it’s a Europe problem as well.

The moment you realize that any clean energy we produce and have been producing for the last 20 years, that the renewable industry boomed exponentially, only serves as additive energy and not as a replacement for non-renewables, because our demands in energy have been exponentially ever-increasing since the 1950s, as the economy doubles in size every 20 years since then. So no matter the remarkable advances in solar and wind, we still needed more energy than that, because that’s how exponents work.

But yeah, let’s continue doing business as usual, this will definitely work.

My point in the first bit is that a non-profit is legally binding, at least in paper, to direct the maximum amount of subscription money to the creators. That could be the subject of corruption by people obviously, but it’s an important guarantee that it won’t happen. If it happens it’s a scandal. If Nebula amasses profits it’s not a scandal, it’s an expected behaviour by a private company. Do you see the difference? In the first case there is a legal safety valve, a guarantee.

And if anything changes like I’ve said I cancel my subscription and support it only for as long as it is truly non profit. So the hypothetical scenario you mentioned before is outside the topic. I am talking about a non profit, when they decide to change this, it’s a different company and a different discussion.

Oh and another important thing that I forgot to mention here is that, as I don’t care about any creators, I don’t want my subscription money to be shared proportionately to the size of the creators in the platform. I don’t care about the big ones, I only care about mine, so that’s a really important detail I don’t like about it as well.

In the second part is the not ideal part is the fact that there are owners that are not all creators. There is a 50% of the money that is directed to the creators and another 50% that goes to the people that own Nebula. That’s profit I don’t want to give to them. I think I was pretty clear. Yes 50% of the profit goes to the creators and 50% of the company will be sold to them if they ever decide to do so, but the other 50% is profit for the owners. The owners have profit for doing nothing, for being the owners, that’s bad and really far away from what I could get behind.

I’m not talking about ideal scenarios here, I’m talking about something that has been done already and it’s perfectly within legal and technical capabilities. A simple non-profit that is transparent about their earnings and their code.

I think we’ve overanalyzed it though.

No I certainly do not think that people with money and power should be trusted. That’s why I want it to be non-profit, the day this changes by its board of directors like you say, this hypothetical company loses my subscription and goes to the same list as Nebula. I don’t get how this is a counterargument.

I don’t see how the owners being a group of youtube creators is an argument. I don’t care about just any creators, I care about the creators I like and respect. A 50:50 split is of course better than yt, but it’s not just the running costs. Why wouldn’t I subscribe to the creators I like through ko-fi for example, where they take 95-100% of the money?

Creators having a stake in a company is of course good but it’s just not what I look for.

That could indeed be the case, I can’t know for sure, but supposing it motivates creators and encourages more creators and audience to join, it for one takes away from Google which is always a good thing but when it’s not open source and when the owners are profiting off of a big percentage of my money for doing nothing, I cannot get behind it. I’d rather support individual creators, it’s simply closer to my ideal scenario.

I understand this, but the problem is that every popular platform starts off not making money and showing a good face. The problem is that there is nothing telling me it won’t make Reddit’s turn when it decided to go public. That’s how corporations work, and the promise of the owners will never be enough when it comes to being fair to the creators and subscribers. It’s true that it’s unquestionably better than a YouTube monopoly, but I personally will only support individual creators until a platform that is truly non-profit emerges - I just don’t see how Nebula is a step in the right direction, it follows the same old model. I understand the problems of decentralisation and that’s why I was talking about a non profit - just like the Proton Foundation is.

I don’t like the fact that it isn’t open source, it isn’t decentralised, it runs for profit like every other corporation, the money from the subscriptions don’t go exclusively to the creators (or considering there are running costs for the platform, the only money deducted from the creators being these running costs), but instead 50/50.

If a decentralised video platform is too hard to achieve, then I’d want nothing less than a open source, non-profit company, being open about their running costs and how much from the subscriptions they require to cover them, for me to give them my money.

Yeah I’m sure the party that brought them in the situation they are in to begin with is their only hope for a future. It definitely represents them and their interests and not the billionaires, hence not addressing any of the real pressing issues in the world that the new generation cares about.