But… you have choice. Nobody needs to go to taylor Swifts concerts. Nobody needs to see the next Marvel movie. It’s a business.

As long as people only spend money on things that are worth more to them than said money, everyone is fine. If people can’t control their purchases, it isn’t the industry’s fault.

I’m fortunate to not enjoy popular culture in the first place.

And a lifestyle that doesn’t require cars seems incomprehensible to them.

That actually makes a difference to me.

I think civil rights for minorities are super important.

I find marriage much less important. It’s essentially just a symbol. (Or is it about the tax benefits and legal protections in case of death? That’s substantial)

Well, legal rights depend on the law. So when arguing about the law it’s silly to refer to legal rights. It’s like conservatives who want to keep pot banned because it’s illegal.

What do you think about a triangular marriage with three people?

I’m pro gay marriage, and merely attempted to reconstruct the opposing logic, and apparently failed halfway through.

Now, whats homophobic about this? The fact that in general to people of the same sex won’t reproduce? That seems about as outrageous as the thought that obesity is a medical condition.

I disagree with the article. It appears to make two points, both don’t convice me.

The first one is about a political donation made by the founder 15 years ago to the tune of 1000 USD. It was against gay marriage. While I somewhat support gay marriage, I find it totally acceptable to be opposed to it. It depends on what marriage means, and people don’t agree on that. For some people it just means a strong bond, stronger than a normal relationship. With this definition, gay marriage isn’t an issue.

But to other people marriage is an envelope that’s supposed to foster reproduction and family building. With this definition gay marriage isn’t exactly straightforward. Neither should it be for people with fertility problems and women over 50 in general. Are convervatives also against that? I guess they should. Whatever. I started off thinking I could defend the stance, now i don’t think i did. Either way, ditch a browser over this nonsense?

And if Tim Berners Lee spews some BS, will you stop using the Internet? Or if your country elects a stupid president, will you boycott the country and leave temporatily?

The other issue is what Brave does with ads. While I agree it is imperfect, I think in general the approach is among the better ones around.

No, i actually meant to be constructive. Nevermind

I just wanted to point out that we have choice. Though it seems redundant, because everyone who end up on Lemmy should know that

Well, then go to a nice community, perhaps even a different instance.

That decline is slower than I expected. It shows that more people stay than not

federation with other previously unfederated instances full of comments. just a guess.

We live in a silly world. The Trial. Her facial implants. depps GFs age chart is close to diCaprio’s. Even Elon plays a role. On top of that there’s Trump, just like the Simpsons predicted

I do understand. But is lemmy so different from reddit? In each case the content is done by the users anyway, and subreddits come and go all of the time. One could argue that Facebooks aquisition of WhatsApp is the same kind of change, as switching out the reddit backend of Sync with a lemmy backend.

I wish they had just updated the old App.

can you enlighten me?

It’s a service, why should you pay once? It’s like water and electricity, ongoing cost needs to be balanced by ongoing revenue. Especially when the utility is also ongoing.

If you prefer paying once, get some dividend ETFs and use the dividends to pay for the service. Yes, it’s expensive, but you can also sell the etf again when you stop using the service.

Cross-Posts don’t show.

Can Lemmy even protect itself against spam while being open?

This reminds me that they finance the Tor project (onion browser).