I hate that I have a birthday in the same month as this shitstain.

Not a positive either way imo

I have a Moto Razr. When opened, it has the form factor of a standard phone, but when closed, it’s a perfectly square little block. It’s honestly the best form factor I’ve had in a phone. It’s also a 2023 model, so I’ve had it for about a year and a half at this point, and the screen is still in perfect condition. There is a small ripple in the screen at the fold, but it’s only visible when shining direct light on it. You have to be looking for it under specific conditions.

If a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video doesn’t break any rules, then what’s the issue with it being monetized?

The issue, my friend, is that such videos often do break the rules on hateful content and on misinformation (though those rules may have also been removed after 2020), but are still able to be monetized regardless.

What I’m doubting here is the claim that this kind of content is somehow disproportionately pushed to people who have no interest in it.

Straw man. You may have had that argument with someone else, but no one on this comment chain ever made that claim but you.

My personal experience doesn’t support the claim that right-wing media is being disproportionately pushed to people who aren’t interested in it.

They didn’t ever make that claim, that’s just your straw man.

The person I was replying too didn’t mention Left or Right and neither did I.

Question: are you really this dense, or just acting in bad faith?

Silencing your ideological opponents is ethically and morally inferior and I don’t care what your supposed motivation is.

“I want to eliminate all of insert racial or religious slur.”

“That’s bad.”

“I want to stop that person from saying and doing that.”

"That’s exactly as bad.*

Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.

Or is it maybe this one?

Or maybe it’s both. Ya know, because they’re the same argument. This exact argument has taken so many forms in the past decade, and it’s always founded on the same fallacy. It’s a false equivalency.

The moment I click on a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video, sure - I get plenty more in my feed. But they also go away when I stop engaging.

Uh huh. Which means they’re being pushed to people they think will engage, which means they’re being monetized or are at least considered monetizable if the creator isn’t eligible. Like they said.

In before this creates a safe space for transphobia and bigotry but does nothing to address shit like that one YouTuber that recently got permanently banned because she knocked over a lamp their automated systems flagged it as “child abuse content.”

Can confirm. My friend is in a band and I’m featured on a track that used to be on Spotify. I can’t remember the exact numbers, but the listened stat was respectable, but the payout? I think it was about $0.16.

Homie doesn’t know what porn is.

The thing is Romm seems to use emulatorjs to run emulated games in the browser, so they’re actually running on your system. There’s no system like that at all for native software. The closest would be streaming things like Moonlight.

Maybe they wouldn’t have needed to diversify into such predatory markets if their execs weren’t pocketing all the money.

I feel like the fact he worked for Microsoft before starting Valve adds a whole new layer to the story, too.

Ah, right. Got my wires crossed I guess.

The most dystopian thing I’ve seen… Fuck, idk, it’s all pretty dystopian these days, I’ve lost count

IIRC, he didn’t get sent it early, he got into Valve’s servers and snagged it.

The kicker, and this is the part I always remember: he guessed Gabe Newell’s password. It was gaben, same as his user name, same as his name name.

Not really.

Chances are, your son is a pirate, and not a particularly smart one. Late last year, that site got into trouble with the French government and started throwing their customers under the bus. They even publicly leaked some users’ info in response to negative comments.

Buddy, you got your whole ass out over here!

This “whatever they want to attack” has been very clearly one item: misogyny, and if you took the time to read these “attacks,” you’d pretty quickly learn that they’re based on something that just happened. In fact, if you look at OP’s comment history, you’ll find a ton of removed comments with very negative votes, and looking a bit deeper than that, you’ll find even more misogynistic posts that are still up.

You’re trolling, right? You’ve gotta be. I’m having a hard time figuring out how you could ever have come into this thread, read multiple different comments calling OP out for recent misogyny, and think this reply held any value.