This is funny when you just look at your profile's first page and see you've made comments like these:

I hate this rhetoric. It implies that this a refular occurence. It is just a man hating comment. If this is happening to you frequently, maybe you are the problem. I am tired of being assumed an asshole just because I am a man. It is sexist. Plain and simple.

So you deny "unproblematic" women regularly experiencing unsafe behavior from men who are entitled and you're also denying people's gender identity - otherwise, why would it be a waste of time for a woman's fight for her right to access women's spaces? So you're hateful towards people you perceive to be "men" while complaining about "man haters" elsewhere. Logical inconsistencies in favor of hate is a hallmark sign of right wing extremist views.

For the record, government debt isn't bad. What is bad, is how that debt is used. If you use it to fund productivity boosting infrastructure projects, then it pays for itself. If you use it to invest in successful companies in return for shares then it pays for itself... unlike when Tesla got a $400 million gov. loan and gave nothing in return - which meant tax payers had to take the hit when Solyndra (which got money from the same scheme) bankrupted itself into the toilet, tax payers took all the risk and got shafted both when a company failed and when one succeeded.

The Norwegian government, for example, owns 30% of the domestic stock market. One of many strategies the US government should probably be looking to if they want a healthier way to invest in companies.

Using debt to back tax cuts on the other hand, like Trump did according to this article, is an awful strategy.

It's definitely a coordinated, global effort. This doesn't just happen in multiple states and countries all at once by chance, it really feels like some group is conspiring to make it happen. We already got this passed in the UK by a de-facto unelected leadership who whips their party into voting their way.

I have to wonder if it's linked to how many women saw success with OnlyFans and the like, so they could avoid working in horrible conditions like at an Amazon factory that pretends to have rules on how long you can do work that probably damages your body, and then just conveniently lets it slip that they ended up making you do what was supposed to be 30 minutes, for several hours. Some capital owners are already trying for child labour, so their desire to abuse workers more than usual is already established. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all connected, but I'm not sure if there's solid evidence, so this is just a fun theory I have.

The story of McDonalds in Denmark is a fun example of this if anyone wants to read. [1]

McDonalds decided not to follow the union agreement and thus set up its own pay levels and work rules instead. This was a departure, not just from what Danish companies did, but even from what other similar foreign companies did. For example, Burger King, which is identical to McDonalds in all relevant respects, decided to follow the union agreement when it came to Denmark a few years earlier.

In late 1988 and early 1989, the unions decided enough was enough and called sympathy strikes in adjacent industries in order to cripple McDonalds operations. Sixteen different sector unions participated in the sympathy strikes.

Dockworkers refused to unload containers that had McDonalds equipment in them. Printers refused to supply printed materials to the stores, such as menus and cups. Construction workers refused to build McDonalds stores and even stopped construction on a store that was already in progress but not yet complete. The typographers union refused to place McDonalds advertisements in publications, which eliminated the company’s print advertisement presence. Truckers refused to deliver food and beer to McDonalds. Food and beverage workers that worked at facilities that prepared food for the stores refused to work on McDonalds products.

Once the sympathy strikes got going, McDonalds folded pretty quickly and decided to start following the hotel and restaurant agreement in 1989.

This is why McDonalds workers in Denmark are paid $22 per hour.

[1] https://mattbruenig.com/2021/09/20/when-mcdonalds-came-to-denmark/

The FBI's political surveillance was not a result of popular hysteria, such as scholars used to claim, or a rational response to communist spying and the Cold War confrontation, such as a number of historians have recently argued. Instead, it was an integrated part of the attempt by the modern federal state, rooted in the Progressive Era, to regulate and control any organized opposition to the political, economic and social order, such as organized labor, radical movements and African-American protest.

• Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States, by Regin Schmidt, PhD

The FBI working against progress shouldn't really be surprising when this is what they did in their formative years. It's a big mistake to think we were stupid in the past and that we're above doing what we used to do, today, and I'm really starting to wonder if intelligence agencies actually are a net positive the more I read about them, at least they seem like they're well overdue for some radical reforming to ensure they act in the best interest of common people, rather than whatever they're doing now and historically.

If anyone thinks this is a unique situation - this has happened so many times. The easiest example is the Nazis, or the "national socialists" because socialism was popular back then so they used the term despite starting with killing union workers and leftists.

Vincent Bevins talks in depth about this in his book If We Burn, where he discusses why (certain) protests fail by going through real life examples of movements that were hijacked by right wing extremists. This is not new or novel, this is going by the playbook on how to fight against movements that ask for justice, peace, more democracy, economic equality, and so forth.

Considering that YouTube is as dominant as it is today because of the well-documented network effect[1], you can consider your use of YouTube instead of a competitor in and of itself a payment because it lets them keep their monopoly on online video distribution. YouTube knows this, which is why they were so lenient in their early years - if they started off being strict, people would've left earlier and made YouTube's future as a monopoly more uncertain because of a demand for competitors.

Maybe instead of justifying their profit-seeking, we should demand more oversight and democratic say over how YouTube as a monopoly operates? Kind of like how in Germany and Slovenia, workers get 50% of the seats on the board of corporations and get to have a say in how a business operates? Alike many other European countries with varying %es of the board seats, like Norway and Sweden where it's 33%, or Finland where it's 20%. [2]

Otherwise, don't be surprised when YouTube starts going after creator profits next. Something they're using to justify going after adblock users now.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors

Make sure you keep in mind that Conde Nast (the parent company of Wired) has subsidiary companies running articles like "35 Best Airbnbs Near New York City, From Cozy Cabins in the Catskills to Beachy Houses in the Hamptons"[1]. They likely have indirect or direct financial ties to AirBnB.

So this article that is seemingly trying to present an argument that this regulation isn't working because a black market has emerged, while giving more space in the article to small landlords and AirBnB's CEO and their defence than to critics of AirBnB, as well as mentioning hotel prices rising but not how AirBnB has caused rental prices to rise... should give you pause about the bias this article is trying to hide.

[1] https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/best-airbnbs-near-new-york-city

I hope unity’s shareholders are happy with what they hoped for. This is the result of driving a company too far. Let’s makes this a guideline to follow for other companies not to make such shady decisions.

I don't think that's going to happen as long as the ownership structures surrounding shareholders remains the same. It's not the average person who invests in Unity that's doing this, it's the wealthy equity firms with significant holdings that are pushing for this unsustainable behaviour. After the 2008 crash, the EU, the US, Canada, and the UK all did studies on the economic stability of coops (1-person-1-vote democratically owned businesses) versus traditional companies and found that the coops were considerably more sustainable:

The cooperative banking sector had 20% market share of the European banking sector, but accounted for only 7 percent of all the write-downs and losses between the third quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2011.

(UK) A further study found that after ten years 44 percent of cooperatives were still in operation, compared with only 20 percent for all enterprises.

(US) Credit unions, a type of cooperative bank, had five times lower failure rate than other banks during the financial crisis and more than doubled lending to small businesses between 2008 and 2016, from $30 billion to $60 billion, while lending to small businesses overall during the same period declined by around $100 billion.

A 2010 report by the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export in Québec found the five-year survival rate and ten-year survival rate of cooperatives in Québec to be 62% and 44% respectively compared to 35% and 20% for conventional firms.

There's also a study using 100 years of data on French wine coops vs non-coop wine companies showing similar results: not only do coops survive longer, the survival rate gap widens over time as more and more non-coops collapse [Cooperatives versus Corporations: Survival in the French Wine Industry. Journal of Wine Economics, 13(3), 328-354. doi:10.1017/jwe.2017.1]

This isn't a great summary, but with the article headings as context it makes a bit more sense:

• YOU CAN TURN OFF AI-RECOMMENDED VIDEOS
• IT’S EASIER TO FLAG HARMFUL CONTENT
• YOU’LL KNOW WHY YOUR POST WAS TAKEN DOWN
• YOU CAN REPORT FAKE PRODUCTS
• YOUR KIDS WON’T BE TARGETED WITH DIGITAL ADS

Most people I see (in various forums) focus on the sexism part of this. It's bad, but I think it's worth highlighting the way Madison says they misled her and started controlling her digital side gigs outside of LTT, and just how bad working there was. Here are a few of the things she mentioned, but I recommend reading the full thread:

I had asked and been told during my interviews that I would be allowed to monetize my YouTube channel and be allowed to join Floatplane in exchange for shutting down my Patreon. ONCE I moved [from Arizona to to Vancouver] I was presented with an entirely new contract/handbook that I was not told existed.

Work from Home was a whole issue. If you took 3 minutes to answer a personal email, you could get in trouble. (happened to me) There is a system of micro-managing and a level of distrust because the amount of content they have to push out daily is so insane, no one gets a break.

I remember getting told off for taking my sick days, as in the days you're entitled to. This no days off, "grindset" culminated in the real moment I realized I had to leave.

They also forced me to have them as my representation if I wanted to take any sponsors for my Twitch or YouTube channels. Originally I had been told, just make sure you okay things by us for non-compete issues. Then that changed when I moved to take the job.

I honestly think the only way Linus can redeem himself at this point (for me personally), is if he made the company into some sort of multi-stakeholder worker cooperative where the workers have an actual chunk of democratic say over the direction of the company. This is how it's done across Europe already via works councils, e.g. in Norway 33% of the board (leadership) is represented by workers, while in other European countries it goes all the way up to 50%. It's been made very clear that the current leadership are incompetent and need to actually listen to their workers.

I sympathize with artists who might lose their income if AI becomes big, as an artist it's something that worries me too, but I don't think applying copyright to data sets is a long term good thing. Think about it, if copyright applies to AI data sets all that does is one thing: kill open source AI image generation. It'll just be a small thorn in the sides of corporations that want to use AI before eventually turning them into monopolies over the largest, most useful AI data sets in the world while no one else can afford to replicate that. They'll just pay us artists peanuts if anything at all, and use large platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Artstation, and others who can change the terms of service to say any artist allows their uploaded art to be used for AI training - with an opt out hidden deep in the preferences if we're lucky. And if you want access to those data sources and licenses, you'll have to pay the platform something average people can't afford.