Of course it does. Not only Google has plenty of money to keep it running, don’t even try to make a moral argument out of one of these companies stripmining everyone’s data
If you care so much about the costs of hosting, I hope you donate to the Lemmy.
Of course it does. Not only Google has plenty of money to keep it running, don’t even try to make a moral argument out of one of these companies stripmining everyone’s data
No it absolutely does not. It is a business, not a charity. They don’t owe anyone anything for free. That’s how the world works. Your personal data is a part of the fee you pay for the service. And again no one is forcing anyone to use that service. There are plenty of alternatives like Nebula that the content creators themselves have set up. You are free to just not use it if you don’t like it.
If you care so much about the costs of hosting, I hope you donate to the Lemmy.
I am new to Lemmy but I absolutely will just as I donate to wikipedia. If it is giving me value, then I am happy to support it financially up to the point where I think the finances are equal to the value I am receiving in return.
How the world works is that people get what they can get away with, and we who are on the bottom ought to keep that in mind instead of idealizing a model of fairness that only helps those who are already powerful get away with more.
Instead, if you do care about fairness, think more about those who need it.
Nebula is a fair suggestion though, because at least that directly helps the creators without constraining them to whatever advertisers want.
How the world works is that people get what they can get away with, and we who are on the bottom ought to keep that in mind instead of idealizing a model of fairness that only helps those who are already powerful get away with more.
It works that way because ultimately that’s what drives competition and innovation. I am open to a more fair alternative however I am aware of none that has actually been successful.
Instead, if you do care about fairness, think more about those who need it.
I said things have a cost and I think based on the market alternatives, what YT is charging is still fair. You may disagree and that is your right to. I did not imply however that the world itself is fair or even needs to be fair. It’s not and never has been and whether is should be is a much bigger philosophical debate outside of just YT pricing.
We are in Lemmy through rising enshittification of the internet and you still believe that Big Tech sucking up all data and charging more for worse services everyday is what drives innovation? That everyone gotta bend over and give up what they say they are owed? C’mon…
Do you even use the internet without ad blockers?
If you think that’s the right and proper way to go about it, feel free. I’ll still handle things my way.
We are in Lemmy through rising enshittification of the internet and you still believe that Big Tech sucking up all data and charging more for worse services everyday is what drives innovation? That everyone gotta bend over and give up what they say they are owed? C’mon…
Big tech getting greedy is how we got reddit in the first place. And reddit getting too greedy is what is leading to lemmy. So ya it is driving innovation. People either think it’s worth it or driven to develop an better or suitable alternative.
I am saying you pay for something as long as you think it’s worth it and as long as you think it’s working and improving and then support an alternative when you don’t. Things getting too expensive for their value has been a cornerstone to driving new innovation throughout history.
Of course it does. Not only Google has plenty of money to keep it running, don’t even try to make a moral argument out of one of these companies stripmining everyone’s data
If you care so much about the costs of hosting, I hope you donate to the Lemmy.
No it absolutely does not. It is a business, not a charity. They don’t owe anyone anything for free. That’s how the world works. Your personal data is a part of the fee you pay for the service. And again no one is forcing anyone to use that service. There are plenty of alternatives like Nebula that the content creators themselves have set up. You are free to just not use it if you don’t like it.
I am new to Lemmy but I absolutely will just as I donate to wikipedia. If it is giving me value, then I am happy to support it financially up to the point where I think the finances are equal to the value I am receiving in return.
How the world works is that people get what they can get away with, and we who are on the bottom ought to keep that in mind instead of idealizing a model of fairness that only helps those who are already powerful get away with more.
Instead, if you do care about fairness, think more about those who need it.
Nebula is a fair suggestion though, because at least that directly helps the creators without constraining them to whatever advertisers want.
It works that way because ultimately that’s what drives competition and innovation. I am open to a more fair alternative however I am aware of none that has actually been successful.
I said things have a cost and I think based on the market alternatives, what YT is charging is still fair. You may disagree and that is your right to. I did not imply however that the world itself is fair or even needs to be fair. It’s not and never has been and whether is should be is a much bigger philosophical debate outside of just YT pricing.
We are in Lemmy through rising enshittification of the internet and you still believe that Big Tech sucking up all data and charging more for worse services everyday is what drives innovation? That everyone gotta bend over and give up what they say they are owed? C’mon…
Do you even use the internet without ad blockers?
If you think that’s the right and proper way to go about it, feel free. I’ll still handle things my way.
Big tech getting greedy is how we got reddit in the first place. And reddit getting too greedy is what is leading to lemmy. So ya it is driving innovation. People either think it’s worth it or driven to develop an better or suitable alternative.
So what you are saying is that supporting alternatives is more beneficial to innovation than paying declining Big Tech incumbents more.
I am saying you pay for something as long as you think it’s worth it and as long as you think it’s working and improving and then support an alternative when you don’t. Things getting too expensive for their value has been a cornerstone to driving new innovation throughout history.