This is nonsense. Your argument is that you’re a pirate if one corporation with no relation to the content fails to pay a corporation which distributes but does not own the content. If you watch an ad then the advertising company refuses to pay you do not suddenly become a pirate.
If a struggling McDonald’s franchise fails to pay some franchisee fee that does not mean you pirated your big mac.
If you load the car with 3-5 passengers it easily beats busses in efficiency, according to my calculations.
Huh? If you’re being very generous you can fit 3 cars into the space of 1 bus. A bus can definitely hold more than 15 people.
You’re being downvotes because it’s irrelevant and you’re claiming a feature that also exists in Firefox is the reason your preferred browser is better. It makes no sense.
There are currently 120 comments, of which I can see one person suggested “violent protest” and one person suggested “blood”. Most of the comments which give any suggestions say unionisation, protest, and reform. If you see those as inherently violent that says a lot more about you than it does the other commenters.
There’s a lot of replies here about why US citizens are in the situation they are but not how to fix it, which was the question you asked. You have two political parties in a first past the post system with largely similar corporate focussed policies, people primarily vote against a party rather than for one that represents them. If you really want to change things you’ll need to overhaul your voting system to break up your two party system and encourage competition from parties that actually represent what people want.
Unfortunately there is no safe and easy way to do this; it means the two parties in power giving up that power which they will not do willingly. You’ll need large scale consistent and actually disruptive protests, ie not just meeting up for a day then returning to life as nornal, but the US has a history of responding to protests the same way they do everything; with violence.
So more practically, you can contact your representative at the appropriate level of government and hope they don’t completely ignore you this time.
There was an experiment once where it was determined that a frog with it’s brain removed wouldn’t jump out of slowly heated water but would reflexively jump if placed into already hot water, leading to a myth that a frog won’t leave boiling water if heated gradually enough.
Idioms around frog boiling generally means to make changes slowly and gradually enough that there is minimal reaction from affected parties.
Username and display name can be set independently, you should have a “Display name” field in settings. Their non-unique display name is “max” and their unique username is “@kittykittycatboys@lemmy.blahaj.zone”. If you check their profile you should see both.
If you don’t set a display name it will be the same as your username, if you set display name to the same as username (like I have) it’ll show your username without the instance even to people on other instances.
No, it’s the website’s fault. You only need explicit consent if you’re tracking users beyond what your service obviously requires to function, the problem is these sites are stalking you.
And if it’s even slightly harder to decline than to accept they’re likely not in compliance anyway so it’s definitely not the EU’s fault.
It’s possible to factually accurate with heavy bias, but since that would require selective reporting to enforce a single worldview I wouldn’t consider that “highly trustworthy”.
Consider the following hypothetical headlines:
“Teen Killed by Islamic Group During Shooting”
“Terrorist Shooting at Mosque, 20 Dead”
Both are technically factually accurate ways to describe a hypothetical scenario where a teen shoots up a place of worship before being stopped by one of the victims, but they both paint very different pictures. Would you consider both sources “highly trustworthy”?
To be clear, you’re against public transport because you live somewhere with insufficient public transport and therefore cannot rely on the public transport that hasn’t been built? Would the problem of insufficient public transport not be solved by building public transport?
A little ham-fisted, sure, but if you think it’s irrelevant you evidently didn’t take any time to actually think about it (you did also reply instantly, so I’ll take that over you lacking reading comprehension).
I’ll simplify.
Digital piracy is illegal copying of unlicenced content.
Alice creates content.
Alice licences the content to Bob.
Bob decides to distribute the content with advertisements from Charlie.
You download the content.
Charlie does not pay Bob.
You did not breach any licences.
You did not pirate the content.
And just to further clarify, Alice is the person who made a video, Bob is Youtube, Charlie is an advertiser. Your argument is not an ad is piracy if “the advertisement company [hasn’t] paid the content creator.” The advertiser pays the distribution company, and the relationship between those two companies is irrelevant. The advertiser failing to pay does not retroactively turn you into a pirate.
The whole argument is pointless in the first place, it’s irrelevant whether or not you consider ad blocking to be technically piracy. A sensible adblock argument would be around the ethics of manipulation versus payment, or security versus whatever it is advertisers want. Arguing semantics doesn’t matter.