because then things would just shut down... The poor suckers that don't use adblockers are what pay the bandwidth and hosting costs for those of us that do. If it becomes the default, things would either shutdown or go paywall.

I mean the concept is pretty simple, all they have to do is make whatever the content it is not play without the verification.

Now I do have to say, it does come down to what is the system we do want? We can agree we don't want intrusive ads. We can say that the paid for services are too expensive. But at the end of the day when we refuse to pay for the content, and then bypass the ads, we do leave content creation in a rough spot. We've kind of reached a point where we need a new system. Yet all we seem to do is try and find ways to break the existing one.

I mean I guess a food bank would have food already as well... They are both one time use consumable supplies so, whether they have them or not, they are going to have to resupply at some point.

Considering that's a percentage of steam users... I do believe mac/windows is what's actually counted against. Unless I missed where steam can be installed on an oak tree.

Passwords you can remember is a problem if you have multiple sites.

While I love XKCDs HorseBatteryStaplerOkay! strategy... that works well for 4-5 passwords, if you have 20+ passwords you'll pretty much wind up re-using, and if it turns out one of the 20 sites had garbage protection and gets fully hacked, any sites you used the same is also going to be vulnerable.

Personally still gotta say go with keepass or bitwarden (selfhosted if possible).

The iHorse.

well in his defense, he's a narcisist. He most likely believes every succesful person breaks the law as much or more than he does. he just is the only one to get caught because he has a target on his head because everyone is jealous of him.

I don't, the point I was making is the corporations are unspeakably untrustworthy and always will focus purely on what gives them the most money. The government is usually corrupt and will often let these corporations do what they want to do. My point is the government at its worse, is the same as large corporations at their best.

So when it comes to things like healthcare... yes I'll take the gov over the corporations.

Yeah funniest thing to me was when body cams were starting out... I heard people say "Would you ever imagine being on camera during your work day?", hell have you ever looked at the camera feeds from a gas station or grocery store, you'll notice that the cameras have a much higher focus on watching the staff rather then focusing on getting a good view of robbers or shoplifters, Almost every job has you either on camera most of the time. If you aren't you most likely are in a setup where the boss walks past you regularly.

I'm missing here. This isn't the sony rootkit to my knowledge. Right now we're talking about youtube itself detecting it's ads aren't being shown and throwing up a page blocking the rest.

"Evidenced by" a non google service putting ads in it's premium service? Don't get me wrong it's bullshit, but again a reason to not use spotify.

Honestly I can't fathom this concept. Youtube isn't a right. It's an optional service. Why aren't we all up in arms about the 5,000 porn sites that have paywalled their services for years? IMO the response to "youtube won't let users use the site without ads" should be "lets help peer tube be more succesful" Just as we are here rather than trying to make a law to get reddit to open up their API for free.

I don't like youtube. But I don't think it's fair or viable to mandate them allow their content for free without ads. That's a bit like mandating hotels give rooms for free. Hosting videos costs a non zero amount of money. Google intends to make more money from advertisements then they spend on hosting videos.

IMO I think the real problem is the resources. Is the DNC wasting any resources backing manchin that could possibly help win an actual democrat in a contested campaign? I mean I get a half democrat is better than a full republican, and we can't get a real democrat in his state. But is there an opprotunity cost of keeping these at best half democrats, on resources that could be used to get an actual democratic majority that doesn't require gutting the hell out of major changes to get our own partys vote.