xor

Figured what out?

I mean, they’re right that it’s not FOSS - the F is free as in available to anybody who may wish to use it, which is incompatible with defining who is allowed

Isn’t near transit stations exactly where you’d want to put high density housing?

Alright, wrap it up boys, we’ve been made

I broadly agree, but I think there’s a bit of a “correlation is not causation” effect at play, too

I would expect people who are very career-focused would prioritise socialising less, and also be more willing to do a long commute for a job they are highly invested in. But the reduced socialising wouldn’t necessarily be caused by the commuting (not entirely, at least).

Are you saying that because you genuinely believe your statement isn’t an instance of the slippery slope fallacy, or because you want to insult me?

slippery slope fallacy

They’re validating the policy of the instance on the basis of the police tactics potentially being used against them, not the tactics themselves

It makes it difficult to use the pavement, especially for elderly people and people with disabilities, costs the council a bunch of time and money to repair, and doing the repairs often require killing off the tree

I think the best example of how deeply ingrained classism is in the UK is the video of now ex-Prime-Minister Rishi Sunak as a young man:

I have friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper class, I have friends who are working class… well, not working class.

I think people often don’t immediately see how stark the class divide is in the UK, especially tourists, because the UK has a relatively large middle class especially around touristy areas. But the difference between Kensington and, say, Middlesbrough is stark

What point are you trying to make?

That there’s better FOSS software (just generally)?

That there’s better FOSS document editing software?

That you don’t like Libreoffice dark mode?

It looks pretty good to me

I like him, so we’re up to America + this one guy

When in doubt, double down with more slurs, I guess?

Technically, it’s basically equivalent to “oh my god”, but the Vietnamese phrase Oi Troi Oi is outstanding

As a more serious aside to the above, it is generally worth paying a bit of attention to which instance other users you interact with. There’s obviously no blanket statement you can make about the users of particular instances, but there are definitely certain instances that are more appealing to… certain groups of users.

lemmy.ml in particular has a bit of a reputation for having tankies on it, but there’s lots of very interesting and reasonable people there (or here, I suppose, given this is an ml community), also.

I think 3) is a really interesting point, and probably the primary reason why a model like that may be less viable for e.g. the Guardian. I think having that parasocial relationship is key to having people take interest enough to be willing to pay for the extra content around the main news output. My concern is that a model like that might incentivise being intentionally divisive and/or making the main content be more like entertainment than information.

I think that’s largely for the same reason; their legal obligations to ensure they don’t facilitate illegal stuff means that the risk of working with companies that do e.g. amateur porn makes the potential consequences (financial processing ban, i.e. effectively the entire company being shut down) massively outweigh the potential benefits.

So you’re right that PH’s legal liability was part of the reasoning, but that pressure largely came from payment processors, for whom the legal consequences are more severe.

Sure, personalised ads can be seen as a form of an invasion of privacy, and everybody has a right to not engage with any organisation for any reason they like. But ads are an imperfect solution to the fact that it’s impossible to run a news organisation at that scale on voluntary donations and un-personalised ads alone, and it’s definitely preferable (in my view, at least) to having a total paywall.

Unless you have an innovative alternative income source to propose, I’m not sure I see what alternative there is.

Respectfully, your argument seems to simultaneously be that they:

a) need a better source of income, because ads and subscriptions aren’t raising enough revenue b) are acting unreasonably by asking you to allow them to use one of those revenue sources

“Would you rather pay for this service, or have ads on it?” Doesn’t seem like an unreasonable ask, frankly. Especially given that it can be trivially avoided with an ad blocker, anyway, and will not prohibit you from reading the article if you do so (this, to me, is the key difference compared to other outlets that have similar requirements).

As far as I can tell, their statement was that they will always make the content available, for free. Serving that content with some ads alongside it doesn’t violate that policy.

No, it isn’t. Acknowledging that a strategy is ideal for the people executing it isn’t the same as agreeing with that strategy.

In fact, the idiom “a perfect storm” refers to a disastrous situation caused by a combination of multiple problems. You wouldn’t argue that using that phrase means you support the disaster.