951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of interest, why are you keeping your chat history? What for? All my chats are set to burn after 6 months as standard but most are shorter than this.
If you, after 20 years, can process all your chat history with a (locally run!) AI, you may find a lot of interesting things about yourself and your friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…
Solving this properly probably means solving how to pay for open source. I think it needs a somewhat complex scheme of pooling money together into an ad-hoc fund like entity and distributing it to service providers by someone elected for the task.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once google's shareholders have wet their beak, the on-campus sushi bars and manicurists and $400k pay packets are paid for and the Taylor Swifts of the world are paid off there isnt much left of your subscription to pay for the long tail of content creators who dont have Taylor Swift's leverage. Which is why many of them say things like "skip these ads if you like Im not getting any of it" or "Im here primarily for…
Youtube has a 55/45 (creator/google) split with content creators. YT premium views also pay substantially more. Most of the money youtube makes goes to creators.
Many folks blame the users “well, they won’t pay for the app!” rather than blaming the software developers who work for Meta. It’s much easier for software devs to agree not support enshittification than it is to unite consumers behind a campaign. We have more agency, more time, and more economic power.
> It’s much easier for software devs to agree not support enshittification Is it? Most software developers I know prefer having a job to not having a job. You don't want to implement ads? You're fired. Blaming the users is also the wrong thing to do, of course. The blame lies squarely with Meta. And with regulators. Any communications platform that has as much market penetration as Whatsapp should be open to use by t…
You know as well as I do that Meta software developers can get jobs elsewhere. It's a choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with YT premium is that they simply do not have content worth paying for. Even the very best content (say, videos where people give music lessons) is not actually something I would pay for. I don't mind paying for a streaming service - I pay for Netflix and will for the foreseeable future. But that's because Netflix has stuff where I actively want to watch it and would miss it if it was gone; YT does not.
Depends on your perspective I guess, personally I find YT far more valuable than any streaming platform. University lectures from hundreds of professors, conference recordings, music videos, millions of independent creators covering nearly any niche you could think of - YouTube's service of hosting that and making it available is worth so much more to me than whatever shows Neflix currently has on rotation. But since…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…
Amazon prime had a lot of customers but they started to put ads to paying customers as well. So the alternative seems to be "free, with ads" or "paid, with ads"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. I think folks would be naturally more skeptical of the government than they are of big tech, ideally leading to E2EE for email that's usable by the masses. That is so weird to me. "Institutions that exist for the sole purpose of serving the people might end up having some power, so let's instead give it all to the literal oligarchs."
Depends on where you are. In some countries people don't trust institutions unfortunately.
Ideally you shouldn't just to just blindly trust them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people go absolutely mentally deranged by a simple magical incantation. The powerful incantation or spell consists of only one word: "Free". That word will make people loose their mind and their soul. It will make people accept anything and everything that they would never otherwise accept. They will line up for hours, they will accept hostile and toxic messages being screamed into their faces, they will humilia…
But Signal is free. And ad-free
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many of the people posting here that criticize this move are owners of Meta stock? The number is certainly above 50%, at least for those in the US, since most people with a retirement plan will own Meta in some form. It's the need to satisfy shareholders with new earnings.
What choice do we have? Indeed, I would rather prefer that the companies that comprise the broad market embrace some form of ESG ethos, but that's clearly out of vogue these days. I vote to that extent, but I'm a breathtakingly small portion of the vote when it comes to corporate governance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. That’s an interesting model for chat. But remember, modern email is quite complex when you add all the standards for authenticity and security together, as well as informal requirements like spam filtering. But even if self-hosting were a pain, it’d still be an improvement over today’s fragmentation-by-app status quo.
> But even if self-hosting were a pain, it’d still be an improvement Why hypothetical? Matrix already works sufficiently well.