BraveSirZaphod

Who is ‘they’?

You’re acting like there exists some single high council of concerned people who have unilaterally decided to pin all childhood woes on the phones, when this is a single article primarily about a particular group of UK parents who’ve focused on this issue and who presumably were never in contact with this American psychologist.

How do you know that these parents haven’t also considered helicopter parenting and free play? Do you know them?

Well, on the plus side, now you know to actually read contracts before you choose to sign them.

In the meantime, enjoy your iPhone.

If the cost of not voluntarily choosing to get myself into bad contracts is being a smug asshole, so be it.

If the phone costs $500, they simply increase your monthly bill by $500 / 24 months = $20 a month.

It’s a bit more complicated than this, and they’ll likely have some interest built in as well, but functionally, it’s no different than being given a loan to buy the phone and then paying the loan off over the two years. That’s why carriers often require a credit check before doing this.

I’ve personally clicked on Instagram ads and made purchases from them. This has pretty much always been for various events, and I don’t really have any regrets there. I’ve seen some cool plays and gone to parties that I’d never have known about otherwise.

I can’t imagine what would ever drive someone to click on a random banner ad though.

So Verizon gave you a phone for no upfront cost, and they’re shitty for making you pay for it if you decide to dash away early?

Fascinating threshold for shitty behavior you have.

I’m gonna take a wild guess that most Lemmy people use Android, and the suggestion that someone might prefer an iPhone is triggering to someone whose sense of superiority comes from their choice of operating system for some reason.

Violent revolution because of an operating system is genuinely one of the most terminally online ideas I think I’ve ever read in my life.

Everybody said they’d cancel Netflix over it

What’s probably more likely is that the “everybody” that you heard from was an incredibly unrepresentative sample of people from a bubble of nerdy tech enthusiasts.

I think the entire point was actually that no single party can unilaterally make that decision. People who want to interact with Meta can, and those who don’t can simply not.

If you don’t wanna deal with them, be on a server that doesn’t federate with them.

They - and literally anyone else - can already do that. Mastodon data is totally public.

I know corporate America doesn’t really deserve any meaningful amount of good faith, but for whatever truth is worth, “sustainable” in a business context has essentially always meant financials. A platform like Twitch is generally going to have really high operational costs between infrastructure, network traffic, engineers, and revenue sharing with streamers, and given that Amazon doesn’t operate Twitch for charity any more than you do your job for free, they need to make sure that they actually have sufficient revenue to be able to make the finances sustainable. I won’t pretend to know how profitable it is, if it even is yet, but cutting employees is obviously a pretty easy lever to pull to reduce costs if your operations can get away with it.

I mean, that’s the entire point, yes. Some financial transactions, at some level of scale, should not be private.

For instance, if you abolish KYC, you’ve just fully legalized all insider trading. Perhaps you can see that there are some conflicts of interest there. On the crypto side, KYC allows the IRS to go after traders for capital gains tax. Without it, crypto would be an easy way for the ultra-wealthy to just completely bypass taxes, since you couldn’t prove that it belonged to them.

Yes, of course it has Neo-Nazis, because it has hundreds of millions of people and essentially every niche community has representation there. The doesn’t mean it’s remotely accurate to say that Instagram is “only Nazis and pedos”.

The most followed user is Kim Kardashian, if I remember right, and she’s targeting the most normie women possible. Nazis and pedos aren’t exactly good for advertising.

This isn’t to say that Instagram doesn’t have moderation issues, but that isn’t contradictory to the fact that Instagram is not solely composed of those kinds of users.

Have you gone on Instagram ever?

It’s normies and wine moms.

I’d throw some articles showing user counts, but you’d probably just call them fake.

But if you are actually curious, I can gladly provide some. There was just recently a big influx of users with the EU launch, a tagging system was recently introduced, and more and more large creators have continued to migrate over.

Already there actually and have had a pretty good experience, though it doesn’t scratch that same Reddit-style itch nor is it trying to. It’s chilling at somewhere around 100 million users, so I’m not the only one.

The point is that it’s portraying not blocking as an inherently negative thing, which isn’t universally agreed upon at all. Plenty of people would say that they don’t need any attention at all. It’s not presenting objective in a neutral way, but rather labeling a group as bad.

Of course, it’s probably fair to assume that the author has no intention of being neutral, but it’s still valid grounds to criticize it as a data visualization.

Yeah, a part of me wouldn’t even hugely mind if these people do wind up leaving, because I’ve been increasingly getting a sense that I wouldn’t hugely miss such great literature as “Suck on my balls Zuckerfuck”

Yeah, I wonder how many of those instances are primarily enthusiasts self-hosting.