In this case YouTube can do literally anything they want due to the lack of real alternatives. Hosting videos for free, for anyone (and any number of viewers) to watch, for free, is rather predictably not a very profitable business model. If you want to see what it takes to actually be profitable with such a model, look at the average free porn site. Extremely intrusive ads everywhere. If you don’t want to pay, and ads are the only revenue, advertisers are the customer, not you.
NGL if HBO made this into a 6 part miniseries I would watch. I would hate myself as I watched but I would watch.
It’s dated, and ancient compared to the shit we spew, but it soo pure and clear (when you get the ear for it).
I am not a scholar, I can’t analyse prose or poetry, but his writing is cleansing and lights up the brain - especially if you have a fetish for reasonableness.
I know exactly what you mean and I’ve never quite had the words to describe this type of writing. It’s definitely old fashioned to our eyes, but it’s so dense with meaning. I felt the same reading some of the landmark SCOTUS decisions of the Warren court during the civil rights era.
Hand is on backwards.
- I posited that entire media eco system behaves this way but we society turn a blind eye
Ridiculous assertion. All it takes is a single person not acting in bad faith to disprove , which is the problem with absolute statements. You can be 99 percent right (you’re not) and still be wrong. Can you prove that literally 100 percent of news media is acting in bad faith? If so, why all this bullshit? Just lead with the proof.
Prove it. You’re asserting bad faith on the part of thousands of people (which implies knowledge of literally everyone’s intent. Are you god? Lol) without evidence.
- We had an exchange on what I meant by this, with you highlighting that “media” is varying and explaining away how media behavior is not the same. Essentially creating dichotomy “media is ok” but these rando’s are the enemy. You did not provide facts to turn my opinion though.
Using the vocabulary of logic doesn’t mean you’re actually doing logic dude. My statement does not in any way create a “dichotomy”. It could right, it could be wrong, or anywhere in between. Nothing said implies “media is ok”. Nothing you said implied they’re wrong. Using the vocabulary of logic doesn’t mean you’re thinking logically. Try harder.
My position is that you are still working within the standard politics framework… muhh team good/right, other team bad.
Nothing I said implied that. You literally just imagined it, like you did the “dichotomy”.
I fundamentally disagree with this approach. I can’t change your mind and that’s fine. I think readers had a decent exchange to read.
Of course you can. You make a logical argument, backed by evidence. Why is that so hard? You haven’t even tried.
- you proceed to engage with a bit of charge which cool by me… but i would want he key issue addressed. Why does main stream media gets a pass for this from avg person?
This is not the question you originally asked, and assumes several assertions that you haven’t backed up with anything let alone proven. It’s also such a vague question that an answer is impossible. You have assumed that your read on “the media” as a whole is right (apparently 100 percent of them are acting in bad faith? Lol), that somehow people know this (proof?) and give them a pass( what does that mean? People complain about the media all the time).
- I would posit that the media and idiots on twitter are prolly funded by the same bad faith actors, well a soup of them from different sides. But what they are not funded by is avg people.
I would posit that you’re dazzled by the true complexity of the world and so you simplify and imagine things in order to fit it into your head and make it make sense. "The media " is not funded by one person or the same people. This is trivially probable.
But what they are not funded by is avg people.
Who are these average people? Aren’t they the ones giving media a pass for all acting in bad faith?
Study epistemology dude. The questions you’re asking aren’t all bad. But you literally don’t know how to think. You just simplify until things make sense to you. That’s not how you find truth. The question of “how do I know what I think is true is actually true” is an extremely important one. Smart people have been asking it for thousands of years. Try learning from literally any of them. Epistemology is important.
If you think this, you don’t understand the media and the role it plays within the regime.
…? Was there any argument in there somewhere? It’s barely an assertion. As expected, even on an anonymous forum without any consequences you’re still unable to actually assert a rational position and back it up lol. Do you think maybe that’s because you’re full of shit?
You explained nothing. I clearly answered your one trivial question and you have no follow up lol.
You guys always prove to be completely incapable of rational thought. It’s why the article triggered you so much.
Owners of the US have fake news run propaganda that has no basis in fact.
Generalizing this far is not rational or productive. There are varying degrees of quality in US media with varying problems within. Zooming out this far isn’t productive. Might as well go further and say “people lie, therefore nothing can be trusted”. Sounds deep, but is just a futile meaningless statement. Most problems with news media stem from distortions of fact, but obviously do have some basis in fact so right off the bat your premise is faulty.
Do you hold these people as accountable
If you’re asking whether I hold media accountable for lying or for bad reporting (no, they are the same. If you can tell the difference that’s on you), then yes I do.
You’re now far off topic. Spreading baseless conspiracy theories constantly and having some of them be sort of adjacent to the truth isn’t a vindication. It doesnt mean you were right to say what you said.
Can you ask a coherent question? Who is my regime? You’re not being charged by the word. Be specific.
If I pump put baseless conspiracies nonstop then statistically I’ll get something sort of right at some point. It doesn’t mean I was right to espouse that bullshit on the first place. Showing your work matters. If you got to a right conclusion accidentally by making shit up , it doesn’t mean you were “right” or that people were we’re wrong to laugh at you. There’s a thing called Epistemology. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Learn about it .
Even asking that question makes you capitalist scum.
But its also a mess of a film that cares more about allegory and metaphor than narrative.
So…a Terrence Malick film?
Charlize Theron is one of the most beautiful women of all time and won her Oscar for playing someone…not that. What I’m saying is that I honestly think Kathy Bates has the acting chops to pull it off.
Why are you like this
Some people are able to understand context.
You couldn’t even refute those idiotic points properly.
My brother in Christ, they invented paper, fireworks, and the compass.
True. And irrelevant.
Because they developed more efficient engineering techniques and more advanced methods of industrial scale production. In the same way Japan ate the American auto industry’s lunch during the 80s and 90s by investing heavily in industry and education, China is flooding the zone with talented professionals and capital improvement projects.
And because the Chinese government is heavily subsidizing their auto industry in order to gain market share works wide. Pros for us: if we can buy these cars, the Chinese government is essentially subsidizing them for our consumers. Cons for us: without equivalent subsidies domestic car companies can’t possibly compete. There are genuine issues of trade fairness in play here.
The Chinese middle class is the largest in the world.
Relevant only if the Chinese middle class is who is working in those car factories. Is that the case?
I’m not even saying the tarrifs are good or bad. If they’re explicitly time boxed and our governments are able to stick to that deal, then they could be good. But in general tarrifs on EVs during a climate crisis driven by carbon emissions is explicitly counterproductive.
Because they make it easy and do a few cool things.
“Do you want a mic in your home that can record everything you say and do and send that data off to wherever the company chooses?”
“No of course not.”
“What about of it will also turn your lights on and off and play despacito on demand?”
“You son of a bitch, sign me up”.
They’re not being actively held hostage in that there’s no giant prison with all their families in it.
They are being held hostage because of the implication. The whereabouts of their family is well known so are they going to toe the line? Of course, because of the implication.
“the greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter”