Ive already go that in my video feed tubular juat slips it in next to my yt vids.

All of the above

Well peertube is struggling already so thats a valid question. Idk if they using peertube style bitorrent video delivery that might help offload the cost a little.

Its not big tech unless they are abusing a monopoly.

I wrote a script to generate seed phrases and look up if that derived into a key with any value. Then did the maths on how impossible that is and decided to stop.

Cos he want to control it

Hes gonna be the first one the ai kills and i look forward to it

The more i hear about twitter censoring shit the less i respect what elon has done. If he did what he said he would do great but unfortunatly i don’t see any of this free speach he allegedly loves.

Btw what was the exact link that twitter thinks is so dangerous?

So you’re a sociopath.

nope, we are currently disagreeing about the social contract hence proving we have different subjective understanding of what it includes. also calling someone a sociopath doesn’t seem like a good faith argument.

No, that would be a normal contract.

no shit Sherlock that would provide an objective contract thus solving the whole subjective issue.

No. Laws are a stopgap that puts our more important social contracts into an enforcement structure, but most of them we just live by.

sure so laws are the objective part of the social contract a majority of people have agreed (people still disagree about what laws should be)

So you want to change the social contract.

that’s called an opinion ones uses them to shift the social contract to better fit their subjective viewpoint

The free market only works to self-regulate when all actors (the company, the employees, and the public) have generally equivalent levels of power.

The marketplace of ideas in the conceptual gives every single person or organization an exactly equal level of power through the concept of free speech. I would argue lemmy has captured this ideal far better than anything yet by implementing censoring we destroy that equality we have sought to create. If fox’s ideas stop being supported/downvoted they fall out of the marketplace of ideas at which point they either adapt or die.

There’s also a demand for cannibalism by many people. Is that therefore a valid viewpoint? There were 18,456 murderers walking the streets in 2023.

absolutely we should let them speak and their ideas will be filtered by the marketplace.

Should we consider their viewpoints valid and entertain them without government regulations?

Doesn’t the first amendment literally prevent the government from regulating said viewpoints isn’t that the whole fucking point? Let people have an opinion and express that opinion as they wish. I fully support your right to advocate for cannibalism or murder (as long as its not directed at a particular person or group) i will most certainly down-vote it and call you a fucking evil monster but I support your right to say it.

Fox has created that demand, though; through fearmongering and misinformation.

That’s called good marketing

he should have that monopoly taken away from him.

Fox doesn’t have a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas nobody in history has ever had a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas to acheive that u would need to drive out every single person or organization capable of independent thought, or just start censoring people what you are actively arguing for

They’ve flouted the social contract in order to increase viewers.

At the end of the day the social contract is just that a SOCIAL contract so in reality its not really a contract is it but a convention most people choose to obey. If it is beneficial to disregard it people will disregard it that’s how evolution works. its your choice what parts of the social construct you want to follow. If you live strictly adhering to it then you are playing life at a disadvantage. Think about it this way your actions are being controlled by subjective contract that nobody else has to obey I would call that NPC behavior.

Im sick of hearing about the fucking social contract this social contract that. The social contract is a construct that exists purly in the subjective. I have no problwm calling u a cunt munching retard and have no proboem u call me the same or worse. I can say fucked shit to u and u can say fucked shit to me there are people who would say thats part of the social construct there are people who wouldnt. Unless u want to write said contract on paper and get everyone to sign it (is that not what laws are?) its purly subjective if not usfull way to explain the actions of people.

Lets take it all the back to the basic concepts of a liberal society. There exists the marketplace of ideas anyone or thing is welcome to add whatever they want to this marketplace like any other marketplace demand then governs the rest. There is a demand for fox by many people they are theirfore a valid (not nessasarilly correct) viewpoint. To ignore this view and/or to ban it is to ignore a vast amount of peoples demand for such ideas within the marketplace.

I believe what i said is a very traditionally liberal veiwpoint which is almost by defininition the center of the spectrum so if u think thats right wing u must be so far into extreme comunist country u think starlin did nothing wrong.

Exactly you are under no obligation to entertain their nonsence this is no reason to ban and silence them

Dont we all guess we gotta make up for it by listening to everyones spin and then making a judgement ourselves.

Can we not just ban news orgs cos they have beleifs u dont like. For discussion to take place u need a varied source of opinions and points of view.

I can strongly reccommwnd stop watching ahort form content it has been proven to caise all sorts of mental issues.

Fair. Also what is a “protected group” what makes it any different from any other grouping?

Isnt the entire gun market indirectly responsible, what about the food the shooters ate? Cant we use the same logic to prssecute anyone of any religion cos most of the religiouse texts support the killing of some group of people.

Its convenient to ask what the argument is when u ignore 60% of it

Really oracles hosting will let me do that for free? Do i need a domain ur can i use some subdomain service for it?

U can make any common practice and pillar of capitalism sound bad by using the words impressionable and extremist.

If we remove that it become: funnelling a market towards the further consumption of your product. I.e. marketing

And yes of cause the platforms are designed to be addictive and are effective at indoctranation but why is that only a problem for certain ideologies shouldnt we be stopping all ideologies from practicing indoctranation of impressionable people should we not be guiding people to as many viewpoints as possible to teach them to think not to swallow someone elses ideas and spew them back out.

I blame Henry Ford for this whole clusterfuck he lobbied the education system to manufacture an obedient consumer market and working class that doesnt think for itself but simply swallows what its told. The education system is the problem anything else is treating the symptoms not the disease.

Yes i could. I could spend the extra 30seconds fixing it or i could not bother and still have my point comprehendable.

Ur missing the point violence should absolutly be policed. Words ideas ideology hell no let isis, ms13, the communists, the nazis, the vegans etc etc etc say what they want. They are all extremists by some definition let them discuss let them argue and the second someone does something violent lock em for the rest of their lives simple.

What you are suggesting is the policing of ideology to prevent future crime their is an entire book about where that leads to said book simply calls this concept thought crime.