There's no profit for the platform. As of now, both the "influencer" and platform are aligned in that they want children to consume more slop. If the platform doesn't have any incentive anymore, maybe most of those "influencers" will fall away, if the algorithm starts deprioritising content geared toward children. As you say, policing the "influencers" is difficult, but at least it is quite easy and simple to target the platform. Better than nothing.
Terrorist attacks and perverts are every government's excuse to crack down on freedom. Refusing to comply with an authoritarian government like India's is a plus in my book.
Of course, if you or your family are not the victim of a terror attack, you may not care if others are impacted by it.
After 9/11, USA did the biggest crackdown on terror, including domestic security overhaul such as stringent security checks in airports, more pervasive surveillance, etc.
And this was for fraud investigation, not even a terror investigation case.
Every nation responds to repeated terror attacks in a similar way. Increased surveillance, increased scrutiny, increased vigilance, retaliatory strikes.
What do you expect? Let terror attacks happen, try not to prevent them, try not to retaliate at terrorist networks and nests?
You live in a cosy idealistic world, if you think that terrorism can be handled by ignoring it or its mechanisms of communication.
Please stop defending terror supporter companies, with such illogical statements.
You have no clue what idealism means.
An ideal world is one where no terror attacks happen.
Proton has been actively campaigning against police and government in a terror prone region. Proton is openly encouraging terrorists to evade scrutiny.
If you support terrorism under any pretext, then we are done here.
you're using a false dichotomy to hold the conversation hostage. it's possible to want to stop terrorism without handing a blank check to an authoritarian state.
Sure, ultimately technical/knowledgeable people will be able to get around it. But preventing normies from accessing Anna's Archive is what they care about, because most people are normies.
preventing normies from accessing Anna's Archive is what they care about
Seriously?
Anna's Archive hosts ebooks and scholarly journal articles.
Not the kind of stuff your average Instagram Influencer (TM) is into.
I'd be utterly shocked if more than 1% of the population had ever used Anna's Archive. This isn't like Hollywood movie torrenting sites or IPTV sports streaming piracy. It's a long way from mainstream.
Yes, seriously. The vast majority of people who read books or scholarly articles wouldn't have a clue how to bypass internet censorship (the "normies" in your definition).
If you copy ebooks to a USB and put it at the summit of a tall mountain, for anyone to take, the authorities and "rights"holders will not give a damn. Convenience and scale matters, and that is why Anna's Archive is a target.
I think the worst of the crypto people are probably the worst of the AI people too. Power/money-hungry grifters naturally move on to the most profitable grift when the old one peters out.
Chrome is not FOSS btw. Google Chrome is proprietary software based on the open-source Chromium (also created by Google), which in turn is a fork of Webkit (by Apple, and with many corporate and non-corporate contributors), which itself is a fork of KHTML/KJS from the KDE project.
You are still right that corporations found and contribute to countless open source projects though.
In China you don't criticise the dictatorship and don't be a Muslim and your quality of life improves every year and you get many cool products and services. In the USA they are disappearing people at random and they are banning the import of products and services from the places that are producing them (mostly China).
The US disappeared a local business owner down the street from me in a sleepy suburb because he happened to be walking to his business one morning while brown.
ICE/BP was looking for someone else, but saw another brown person while waiting, and took the opportunity to grab him, too.
He was imprisoned for more than a month and shuffled around the country before anyone bothered to look at his identification or acknowledge their validity.
Are you aware of what's going on in the US right now?
NYT: Those Deported to El Salvador Were Shackled, Beaten, and Sexually Assaulted[1]
And if you're saying to yourself, "what do I have to worry about, I'm not brown", well, do you have kids who you don't want to have abducted and zip-tied naked in the middle of the night by paramilitaries using grenades and rappelling from helicopters into your home[2][3]?
> Neighbors like Eboni Watson say they ducked for cover as they heard several flash bangs.
> "They was terrified. The kids was crying. People was screaming. They looked very distraught. I was out there crying when I seen the little girl come around the corner, because they was bringing the kids down, too, had them zip tied to each other," Watson said. "That's all I kept asking. What is the morality? Where's the human? One of them literally laughed. He was standing right here. He said, 'fuck them kids.'"
> “It was heartbreaking to watch,” she said. “Even if you’re not a mother, seeing kids coming out buck naked and taken from their mothers, it was horrible.”
> "They just treated us like we were nothing," Fisher said.
I would wager some VP at YouTube in charge of shorts has their performance evaluations tied to how many hours of shorts are watched. So that's one incentive. Another is customer retention. Make current paying users addicted to shorts, and maybe they'll be more likely to keep paying.
I think you're basically right, but the comment I replied to was saying they'll somehow get more of that specific user's money. While the shorts may improve retention in aggregate, this particular paying customer doesn't want them.
It's possible that particular user, despite not wanting the shorts, will keep paying for YouTube for longer because they enjoy shorts. It's also possible that they genuinely don't like them and are less likely to keep paying because of them. People are different. What keeps some customers engaged can turn off others.
> if you liked the company or product so much why would you take shots like that?
Key word here is "liked". Seems like OP liked the company when it had a free tier, and no longer does after it axed the tier. They don't owe your company anything, in the same way your company doesn't owe anything to the non-paying "customers" it stopped subsidising. No foul play by either party. I wouldn't take it too personally.
reply