Rottcodd

What "entitlement?"

I don't expect anyone to start a web site or service or to give me or anyone else access to it at all, much less for free.

I'm just making the very narrow point that when a company chooses to do all of that, and manages to make enough money to build a plush corporate headquarters on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay its executives millions or even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, then starts crying about not making enough money, that's self-evident bullshit.

If anybody's acting"entitled" in that scenario, it's the greedy corporate weasels who spend billions on their own privilege, then expect us to cover their asses when they come up short.

I expect a wave of internet users to get upset and call paying for used services “enshittification”, because people don’t realise how much running these AI models actually costs.

I am so tired of this bullshit. Every time I've turned around, for the past thirty years now, I've seen some variation on this same basic song and dance.

Yet somehow, in spite of supposedly being burdened with so much expense and not given their due by a selfish, ignorant public, these companies still manage to build plush offices on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay eight- or even nine-figure salaries to a raft of executive parasites.

When they start selling assets and cutting executive salaries, or better yet laying them off, then I'll entertain the possibility that they need more revenue. Until then, fuck 'em.

Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true.

How did you not get my point?

We'll try it this way:

Thirty people live in a town.

Ten of them, with a leader, want some policy implemented

Twenty of them oppose the policy.

The ten with a leader organize and push for the policy

The twenty who oppose it stand around with their thumbs up their asses, each of them telling themselves that they can't accomplish anything by themselves.

The policy gets implemented

Or

The ten with a leader organize and push for a policy.

The twenty who oppose it each, individually, pull their thumbs out of their asses and stand up and say they oppose it.

Each of those individuals, making their individual choices, finds themselves surrounded by nineteen other individuals who made the same individual choice.

They easily outnumber the ten who want the policy and the policy fails.

That's exactly how and why individuals going ahead and making their individual choices instead of failing to do it because "I can't make a difference by myself" can make a difference.

All they have to do is stop waiting around for somebody to lead them, pull their thumbs out of their asses, and just go ahead and do it on their own, each one as an individual.

the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion.

And some number of those workers have the exact same opinion that you do - they're opposed, but they don't think they can make a difference.

And if all of you stopped waiting around for some charismatic leader to tell you what to do and just went ahead and made the choice you prefer, you would make a difference.

No - it's not ethical.

Very little evil is actually a direct result of evil people doing evil things. The vast majority of it comes to be through ordinary people doing banal things - things that, like building weapons, are questionable at best, but that they excuse because it's "out of my control."

The thing is that it's not out of their control. Yes - if one individual makes the decision to not take part, that's not going to have much of an effect, but if every person who feels the same way makes that same choice, that absolutely WILL have an effect.

And there's only one way to make it so that every person who feels the same way makes that choice, and that's for each one of them, individually, to look past that "it's out of my control" bullshit excuse and go ahead and do it.

Everything on any significant scale is out of individual control. Individuals just possess a very limited amount of control over affairs on a national, much less global, scale. But that's really entirely beside the point. The point is how you choose to exercise the small amount of control you have. Will you use it for good, or for evil?

Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

I already generally do.

What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?

I honestly don't much care, but that's because western civilization is circling the drain, warped and undermined at every turn by wealthy and powerful psychopaths, and it's just not worth it to care, since there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop them

Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

Some sort of revenue stream is potentially necessary, but that's the extent of it. Advertising is just one revenue stream, and even if we limit the choices to that, there are still many different ways it could be implemented.

The specific forms of advertising to which we're subjected on the internet are very much not necessary. And they don't exist as they do because the costs of serving content require that much revenue - they exist as they do to pay for corporate bloat - ludicrously expensive real estate and facilities and grotesquely inflated salaries for mostly useless executive shitheads.

Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

Again, that's what I already do, so it would just add more sites to those I won't visit.

Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

At this point, the two are almost always one and the same. Internet technology is primarily harnessed to the goal of maximizing income for the well-positioned few, and all other considerations are secondary.

Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?

This is cynically amusing on Lemmy.

Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?

Of course they should, but they won't, because they're psychopaths. They'll never give up any of their grotesque and destructive privilege, even if that means that they ultimately destroy the host on which they're parasites.

why do people need so much money

Mental illness.

Really.

This behaviour makes you and by extension mbin seem like a bunch of unhinged petty drama queens.

Personally, there's already absolutely no way I'm ever going to use mbin, no matter what, just because these people nauseate me.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

But FDR style Dems don't collect big piles of soft money, and collecting big piles of soft money is now the one and only goal.

The mere existence of the Thomas More Society - just the mere thought of an ideologically-driven and intellectually dishonest organization named for a man who was notable specifically for the fact that he refused to subvert his reason to political expediency - fills me with rage.