Sure, and not just that. Most, if not all people I know of whom I’d consider a ‘normal’ don’t spend time commenting on social media. By definition, everything we read on here comes from this self-selecting group of people who do not represent the majority.

I specifically post here with the expectation of being challenged. That’s the whole point of it. I love a good debate.

I’ve always just muted users instead of blocking anyway. I don’t care if they see what I post. I just want them out of my sight

So Twitter is one step closer to being like Lemmy

Ever been to Lemmy?

My blocklist is already over 500 users long. I don’t block people for disagreeing with me. The bubble I’m building for myself is a bubble free from unreasonable assholes.

However, you didn’t really answer my question. Blocking an entire instance is already a feature. That’s way more ‘heavy handed’ than what I’m suggesting.

Adblocker works on twitter too though, and I don’t really mind Elon profiting from my use of Twitter anyway. People should be compensated for running social media platforms like twitter.

What about Lemmy instances defederating others? We not hearing from people on Twitter, Threads, Facebook, Truth Social and Gap either, and what about the block feature in itself? If what I’m asking is ‘issue for society,’ then are these not?

I don’t think anyone is in the position to dictate what everyone’s social media feeds should consist of. If someone wants to make them a perfect information bubble, devoid of different opinions, then let them. That’s of no harm to me.

I post gay porn. The number or right-wing rednecks that follow me with their public profiles is… confusing.

I tend to feel that if it’s a streaming service providing access to a wide range of videos, it could be argued that you don’t own them and, therefore, can’t download them either. However, you could still have the option to pay extra to actually purchase the video too. That money should go to the creator, though, who, of course, would also set the price. That could be free too. I, for example, have no issue with people watching my car repair ‘tutorials’ on YouTube for free.

Sure, I have nothing against that. I, however, still think that whatever platform hosts their videos deserves some compensation, right? So that’s going to be either subscribtion, ads or donations.

Ok, but ‘fuck subscriptions’ is a blanket statement directed at the subscribtion business model as whole, including the hypothetical well run, and non-greedy ones.

Right, but I don’t see how simply being on the platform makes one part of the problem.

Yle.fi which is Finnish state media, similar to BBC.

Joe Rogan Experience, Modern Wisdom, Making Sense, Lex Fridman Podcast to name a few I listen to the most.

Sure, but it’s also a fact that many of the YouTubers whose videos I deeply enjoy wouldn’t be able to make them if it didn’t make them any money

How do you apply this to a platform like YouTube? I don’t even finish most of the videos I start watching there, and the ones I do, I’ll likely never watch again anyway. Subscribtion seems much more logical profit model to a company like that.

Ah, I see. Live and let live.

As a non-US citizen, I’m getting the impression that a big number of left-wing voters are voting for Kamala not because she’s so great, but because she’s not Trump. Similarly, a ton of republicans are voting for Trump because they consider it a vote for the party, not for the candidate, and they sure are not going to vote for a democrat because (insert stereotypical grievances about liberals.)

To me, it seem reasonable to assume, that given the chance, there would be a ton of people on both sides that would rather give their vote to almost anyone else but either of these two, but they don’t because they know that a 3rd party can’t win and this would just risk the greater or two evils winning.

Why I referenced the prisoner’s dilemma is because I mostly see this as a coordination problem. What if instead of tactical voting, everyone just voted for the candidate they actually consider the best one? It’s not at all obvious to me that this would still mean that either of the two main candidates would win. This could very well give rise to a 3rd party.

Also, to return to my original point; it doesn’t seem immoral to me to vote for 3rd party even if that causes Trump to win by one vote. You did the right thing, rest of the people didn’t. If everyone acted like you, it seems to be that this would, in fact, lead to him not winning.

say 20% of voters in swing states voted third party, it would let the greater evil in

Not in the case of ranked choice voting. If the 3rd party candidate doesn’t win the vote goes to the number two choice.

Also, sometimes the lesser evil is still evil. Imagine if the vote was between Trump and literal Hitler.

But how do you apply this to a platform like YouTube? I don’t want to have to buy each video I watch.