Not interested in the short-video concept. But I like the name, though. Short, sweet, doesn’t sound too “techy”, not too complicated to pronounce or spell.

deleted by creator

Didn’t someone create this same thing a few weeks ago? 🤔

Ubuntu here as well! Sticking with just the LTS versions tho 😎

deleted by creator

Does anyone know how this could affect Brave? I’ve suggested it for non-tech Google Chrome refugees who find Firefox difficult to use.

Interesting take I can appreciate, but hold on there…

This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices

I dont think that’s what they mean at all. I doubt people care about ScarJo growing her bank account. I think most people who side with ScarJo just dont want Open AI stealing stuff it doesnt own, including people’s voices. Especially if they’re profiting off it.

This is an interesting perspective, and I very much see how people can have it. Totally agree that the internet just isn’t like it used to be, arguably for the worst, depending on who you ask.

As much as I hate these big tech platforms, the issue isn’t that they’re doing what they’re doing. After all, capitalistic societies (especially the US) don’t just ignore it, they actually encourage this sort of “money above all else” mentally that a lot of these CEOs and shareholders have. So what platforms are doing shouldn’t surprise anyone. Maybe some of it should be made illegal, but I’d argue making new laws still won’t really address the problem.

The real problem is that we (everyday people) need to take more responsibility over the mental health of ourselves and our children and just stop using this brain-rotting software. We can complain about what they’re doing to humanity all we want, but if we continue to use these platforms, we’re just making it easier for them to do the bad things they do.

Genuine question: how do we actually “kill the big fish” though? Majority are going to continue to use big tech out of convenience and because they dont care much.

Not condoning it, but all I can think is how terrible Facebook is for “coordinating” stuff like this. I mean, if FB or the feds wanted to find out who these people are, track them down or something, they can do that pretty easily. People who do stuff like this aren’t too bright, though. So not surprised, I guess.

Why isn’t Rumble an option? Genuinely curious. Is it because it’s not open source? or federated or something?

These were great in their day, but it’s time to move on to something better and safer.

How is it “safer” when contributing to the codebase or filing and discussing issues will now require creating an account and giving up personal information to one of the most privacy-invasive tech companies in the world? 😳

Yeah I’d personally like to see more regulation and cases fighting for privacy rights instead, especially here in the US.

Google says pause ads on YouTube are getting a very positive reaction from advertisers

Bc screw the users and their reactions 😄.

We really need a good YouTube competitor. This is beyond ridiculous at this point.

I get the sense that most people on this platform get it. It’s the people that would never even be on Lemmy to see this advice that I worry about. Those are the ones that need to keep seeing these posts and comments like yours.

Oh neat! I didn’t know this existed. By any chance, do you know of any RSS readers that have implemented it?

So don’t use RSS then? No one’s trying to convince anyone to use RSS if they don’t want to. I was just correcting the validity of the original statement.

Is there one for the other sites like bbc.com?

RSS has no adoption anymore

Not true. RSS feeds are the only thing I use these days and know quite a few others that do as well. Sure some sites may not have RSS feeds by default, but there are a ton of services that auto generate RSS feeds for you.

I love a friendly debate 😀:

The statement says How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?. You can definitely steal it if “you” aren’t the customer. And you can steal it from a “customer” even if the customer doesn’t own it and someone else does. And you can steal if even if you are the customer, because you aren’t the owner. The only time you can’t steal it is if you are the owner, because you own it.

The definition of “steal” you mention seems to be proving the point I’m making. Something can be stolen if the person stealing it isn’t the owner, which is the case in the first three examples I mentioned above.

The statement is an odd play on words and loaded with assumptions that are left up to the reader, which is why it’s super weird to use it to try to prove the point the author was trying to make.