I’m being completely serious and I’m interested to understand more about what you mean.

It doesn't strike me that way when you also write things like this:

you’re equating it to something like healthcare and education.

"equating" sets up a straw man. Such a tactic gives me the impression you think of this as some sort of battle that you want to win rather than a good-faith discussion.

What I had written was not an equating – and I think you should have or indeed did see that – only a comparison to show that something's being describable as a product or service "in some sense" does not mean it is the sort of thing we pay for in a traditional way. This contradicts the central inference of your argument.

The answer to how I would actually characterise the "service" of YouTube is already in the first comment, so I'll just quote it again:

For one thing, the "service" here has risen to a point of ubiquity that it's a de facto public space. Everything is on YouTube – legacy media channels, individual enthusiasts, alternative media outlets, the worlds of tech, fashion, politics, sports – you name it. If you were deprived of all access to it, you would have a qualitatively poorer access [to] what is going on in society. So it's not equivalent to a traditional service like a trade.

I stand by that; YouTube has a near monopoly over that media form, and if you require access to information and essentially a key plank of the online public square, then you need to go through it. I regard it as a (positive rather than negative) right that we do all have – not to use YouTube specifically but for information, opinion, discourse, politics and more to be available to us all. As it happens, YouTube is a key platform for the arrangement of all these things. Twitter also is/was, which is why Musk's buyout was in principle concerning, and then in practice very shit once he created a two tier system of access to and impact on that public space.

So mediums with advertising should not be allowed to seek monetary payment? Only mediums without advertising should do so?

Not quite sure how you got to the point you did there. There are different ways to advertise – billboards and TV/radio adverts, e.g., while often odious, are something you can more easily divert your attention from and which are not tracking devices or the product of turning you personally into an item for sale. I dislike them and would prefer a world without them but I don't think their being attached to organisations in and of itself ought to deprive those organisations of income.

I’m not understanding your logic here.

That is apparent.

For me it’s pretty simple. There is a product - would you like to pay for it?

This is called "begging the question" as a response to me – I've called into question exactly both your premise and conclusion, for reasons you've not actually engaged with, and then you've re-asserted them. You have assumed what you've set out to prove.

(1) it is not simply a product (or service – you've changed tune there), for the reasons I've already outlined. Its use and availability is not analogous to something you can pick off the shelf or pay a tradesperson to do for you. (2) therefore, the question of paying for it (and how) demands different kinds of answer. In the country I'm from, e.g., healthcare is a right and not paid for, neither is early-years education up to 18, and so on. Both are "products" or "services" in some sense of the term, but to speak of payment here is complex and the answer doesn't simply carry over from thinking about normal products/services.

I feel that all the scary words you can add to a paragraph about advertising based revenue for digital mediums is just your tool to justify your behavior of sticking it to the man.

This can only be a disingenuous response, surely? Rather than engage with the criticism of the nature of modern internet advertising and how corporations use it to affect people, you'll just summarise it as "scary words".

He would have been better off not talking about harm directly but the ability to cause harm; he actually used that wording in an earlier comment in this chain. (Basically strawmanned himself lol.)

Because as a standalone argument for encryption, it's fairly sound – hey, the ability of somebody to cause harm via encrypted messaging channels is the selfsame ability to do good [/prevent spying/protect privacy, whistleblowers/etc], and since the good outweighs the bad, we have to protect the ability to cause harm (sadly).

The problem is it's still disanalogous – the ability to cause harm via LLM use is not the selfsame ability to do good (or to do otherwise what you want). My LLM's refusing to tell me how to make a bomb has no impact on its ability to tell me how to make a pasta bake.

They're allowed to give it to people who ask.

I think that very much depends on what sort of article/chapter, what publisher, and what the nature of the copy the author has is (e.g. preprint, journal published version download, unpublished Word manuscript, etc.) It's hard to make any true generalisations here.

Let's just turn everything into TikTok, hey.

I would say that was the case in the UK generally about 5 years ago. But WhatsApp increasingly took over as the norm because it was clean, quick, relatively well encrypted, and made sending gifs and stickers easy and fun for the average user. Plus, the youth aren't only wedded to iPhones unlike the US increasingly.

Always wondered how good the Remarkable series is. Have been tempted but the hardware isn't that cheap really. Since discovering the PDF reader of Zotero and running it with a night mode plugin, I've found myself mainly just wanting to use that. The annotations are stored separately as well, so you don't get massively inflated PDF filesizes (though if you want the option to export with embedded annotations, you can do that; you can also import embedded annotations to Zotero and then clear the file of them). Very cool.

Teams

shudders

Thanks for the suggestions!

Thanks! Re switching - yeah, I agree. What do most people do in this situation – buy second hand or find older devices and just boot Linux off those? Use separate drives and boot off those? Like, what are the typical range of hardware decisions facing someone who thinks they wanna give Linux a real go?

That was actually a correct usage, fwiw (said as a native speaker with a penchant for caring about language – so that's all but confirmed).

What about the actual files there – risk of malware/viruses?