ObjectivityIncarnate

clicking on a weird video and you permanently scar your algorithm.

It’s trivial to delete individual videos from your watch history, even moreso if you just saw it. Doing so makes it as if you never clicked on it in the first place.

Facebook is that way.

I feel like I got 10 years younger seeing this Facebook-tier image on Lemmy of all places, lol.

those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad.

This demographic is much, much smaller than you probably assume it is–I mean ‘statistically insignificant’ small.

we can’t know how many also choose to escalate because of these outlets.

But we do know that in general, porn doesn’t elicit that kind of escalation into real life. If this particular category of porn did cause that, it’d literally be a total outlier.

Same with other media, too. Rape porn lovers aren’t statistically more likely to rape irl, violent video game lovers aren’t more likely to be violent irl, etc., compared to the general population.

So I think it’s pretty fair to hypothesize that, if anything, it would reduce the incidence of real-world offense. Just look at the massive negative correlation between the proliferation of porn (thanks to the Internet), and the overall incidence of rape.

Also, I’m familiar with one bit of evidence out of Japan that apparently showed that child molesters consume less porn than the average citizen, which I was definitely surprised to learn, but once you think about it in the context of the stuff I mentioned above, it actually makes perfect sense.

In all likelihood, fictional ‘simulations’ like LLMs will directly reduce the incidence of CSA, if anything. If that’s the case, I can’t oppose such things in good conscience–it’d be pretty narcissistic to put my personal disgust over even a single kid not getting bad touched.

You have no idea what prompted the emotions, you just happily assume whatever will give you the excuse to express your misandry.

I’d bet anything that if you read one of the many accounts of women getting genuinely angry at their SOs, even striking them (which is way worse than striking an inanimate object, by the way), based on what they dreamt the guy did, you wouldn’t be blaming her “fragile femininity”.

For all we know, guy had just received some horrible/devastating news.

The assumptions leading to both the ‘framing’ act and the gleeful posting of it on social media are just a manifestation of thinly-veiled misandry.

Couldn’t have said any of this better myself.

Hell, I don’t even want to ban users guilty of piracy.

Yeah, if someone shoplifts from a store, the punishment/penalty should not involve confiscating the car they drove to the store, lol.

Fun fact, the PS3, whose top model was $599 at launch, would have cost over $900 in 2024 dollars.

So this is actually not the worst it’s ever been, even for this company, lol

no

sacking hundreds of actually productive employees.

If they were “actually productive”, sacking them would hurt the bottom line, not help it.

You lot are constantly talking about how workers are uniformly short-changed on their labor by their employers, underpaid for it and therefore being a profit source for employers, but you never explain why any business would do layoffs like this if that was the case, lol. Do these people who got laid off make the company money or not?

70% of that $2.4 million should have been taxed

It’s literally post-tax income already, lol.

Literally just look at JK Rowling’s twitter feed

You’re projecting your terminal online-ness onto the general population. The vast, vast majority of Harry Potter, or any book series, fans, pay z-e-r-o attention to the personal Twitter account of the author.

Accusing that huge majority of being transphobic just for that is moronic, full stop.

borrow against those assets to access their wealth tax-free.

…until they pay the loan back, you mean.

Hell, loans better be tax free, it’s not income if you have to pay it back.

P.S. Some food for thought: if workers’ labor is being ‘skimmed’ by employers, making workers into a source of profit as a result, then why would a company ever downsize as a measure against financial difficulty? Why would any business ever fire anyone who’s doing their job, if worker = profit for the business?

Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to?

Whoever sells the appreciated asset to someone else, who was willing to buy it at the new, higher price.

And if they don’t sell, there is no profit, it’s still unrealized.

It just frustrates me how much trans people/activists fuck up their own messaging with confusing/ambiguous/self-contradicting rhetoric, you know?

Another major example imo, is using the single word “gender”, both to describe gender identity (something an individual person has), and gender roles (something a society has), sometimes in the same damn sentence.

The best way to ensure a discussion isn’t productive is to make sure that the ‘discussers’ are using the same terms, but are defining them differently, lol…

It’s literally not a fact. Net worth is a price tag, not an amount of cash.

No they aren’t. The number that’s increasing is a price tag, not cash. That’s why no one’s wallet or bank account gets bigger when that same number goes down.