Interesting, maybe the content has changed, I probably don’t watch enough TV to have noticed. But I think Channel 4 news is pretty good, and I liked their Paralympics coverage.
Interesting, maybe the content has changed, I probably don’t watch enough TV to have noticed. But I think Channel 4 news is pretty good, and I liked their Paralympics coverage.
But then you could look at Channel 4, which does show ads to UK people, but I think Channel 4 is still okay and I don’t think it has been ruined by ads. So maybe a profit motive is what causes enshittification, rather than just ads. I definitely hate ads but maybe ads alone don’t destroy platforms.
True, they don’t show commercial adverts in the UK, but they do to other countries. People outside the UK can access the BBC website but they’ll see adverts on there, and apparently BBC America (shown in the US) has commercial adverts
And Channel 4 of course does show commercial adverts in the UK, but I think they still make some decent content, and I don’t think they’re on the verge of self-destruction
Maybe the real problem is when an entity is chasing profits, because Channel 4 isn’t a normal for-profit business, since they’re owned by the government, and I think they have to abide by some rules
I don’t think that’s necessarily true - maybe it depends on (a) the owners of the platform and/or (b) whether there are sources of funding besides advertising
E.g. here in the UK, the BBC and Channel 4 are both broadcasters owned by the government, and both are funded at least in part by adverts. But I think both of them are relatively healthy and aren’t on the brink of destroying themselves.
I think most of the BBC’s funding comes from the licence fee (British people pay for a TV licence) but they make some money from ads shown to international audiences. Channel 4 is solely funded by adverts I think, but it’s owned by the government and I think they have to abide by certain rules and targets.
The funny part was when he said he was a free speech absolutist, but then he started restricting the free speech of people he doesn’t like
More anti-consumer stuff from corporate bigwigs
I guess it’s personal to different people. Some people don’t care about sex and that’s fine. Some people want sex, and as long as they do it in an ethical way (e.g. not sexually abusing anybody), that’s fine too.
If sex does matter to someone then they might not want to lose that part of themselves. Just like, if you have a certain hobby, you might think “I hope I maintain my interest in this hobby, because it’s a key part of who I am”.
Sex is important to most organisms. I don’t think people want sex just because it’s a norm in society. I think they want it due to an instinctive desire. Just like people want to eat food and breathe air.
I think you are right. Somebody who lights themselves on fire could try to ignite other people. The cops are just following their training and trying to make sure that the guy doesn’t try to harm others.
And saying the cops are cowardly for this behaviour doesn’t really make sense, I don’t think. They’re thinking the guy could try to hurt others, so they’re prepared to stop that.
You are wrong. HMD is a Finnish company, not Chinese. Apparently it is largely made up of former Nokia employees.
If you’re going to be a smart-arse and say things like “you’re welcome”, maybe you should check the facts first.
To be fair, he may well have been like that. Humans have been selfish bastards since the dawn of time. And maybe this is why we need good government regulations - because human nature is greed. Any company in a position of power will just leech as much money as they can, if nobody is going to stop them.
We all thought Bill Gates was a megalomaniac, but clearly we didn’t know shit