ScrimbloBimblo

I mean we don't have a /c/ for that yet, so might as well be here.

I am so tired of this sentiment. You're not wrong about the corporate stuff, but blaming people for wanting it to get better serves no purpose. For all its flaws, Reddit had something that no other site, not even this one, has been able to remotely replicate. I didn't use the site for news, politics, memes, or mindless scrolling. I used it because it was literally the only place to discuss niche topics and interests.

Whether we like it or not, it's the only place where a lot of these niche communities exist. Users that were here since Digg will find a new home, but the one who can barely use a Macbook may not. And I'm all for helping as many of those communities migrate, but the truth is that for many communities, especially the ones less technically inclined, the death of Reddit means the death of that community, and that's really fucking sad.

From your comments, it seems like you may just not be in the target demographic for these kinds of films. It sounds like you're a teenager, and while there may be some teens who enjoy these films, they're definitely intended for adults. Also, you mentioned that you live in a non-english-speaking country. There's a lot of English films that manage to translate well to non-english-speaking audiences, but LOTR is unfortunately not one of them. The characters speak heavily in metaphor and idioms, most of which don't translate well. It's the same reason Western audiences often have difficulty with older Japanese media.

I agree with your examples, all of which have been heavily criticized for anti-consumer behavior, particularly Disney and Netflix, so I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Just because Netflix does it, doesn't make it okay for Nintendo to do it. Digital media companies have strong incentive to practice anti-consumer behavior, so public outcry is important to counterbalance that.

I don't think the Ford and Apple examples apply, as these companies make primarily physical products. Both of these companies really do want you to use their products for two reasons:

• Most of their marketing is literally just people seeing their products being used.

• Cars wear out with usage, as do computers, so the more you use their products, the sooner you'll buy a new one.

Digital media is unique in that it's not highly visible and using it more doesn't make it degrade.

Any job that forces you to use Meta services is probably exploiting you in other ways and isn't worth whatever they're paying you. Even employees of Facebook don't have to do this.

I don't disagree with this, but it sounds like you're talking less about violent crime in general and more about sexual battery and premeditated assault, which makes up a relatively small proportion of violent crime.

Most violent crime is just regular conflict that escalates into throwing punches, and throwing these people in prison is the quickest way to push them away from lawfulness and down the path of crime. Prison is just networking for criminals.

So I agree with 90% of this, and I don't understand why you're getting downvoted. That being said, the one thing I can't get behind is worse punishments for violent crime. I'm not saying violent crime is good, but basically all of the evidence suggest that worse punishments do nothing to curtail it, and in fact make it more likely. The longer someone spends in prison, the less likely they are to reintegrate into society. If the goal is to reduce violent crime, rehabilitation is far more effective than deterrence.

Based entirely on your comment, I would say the issue isn't the concept of ideology, but the fact that the ideologies that matter the most and the ones that spread the fastest aren't the same. After all, the idea that no one should starve is itself an idealogy.

Personally, I feel like most of the problems in the modern world come down to issues of scaling. We evolved our brains to coordinate in small bands of people, but we try use those same brains to coordinate groups of hundreds of millions.

The larger an organization (corporation, government, npo, etc.) gets, the worse they get at coordinating around a central goal or set of values, and the more likely they are to evolutionarily optimize around something entirely divorced from the values of any individual member.

A company of 100 employees is entirely capable of creating a high-quality product, compensating their workers well, and avoiding anti-consumer practices. This doesn't mean they'll always do this, but it's possible. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation of millions of people, even if run by the most ethical CEO on earth, will always gravitate toward maximizing profit at the expense of everything else. Even libertarians recognize this as a fundamental flaw in unchecked Capitalism.

Similarly, a government of a few thousand people can create a good constitution for an orderly society, but in a massive government of a country of 300 million people, trying to make any sort of effective, positive political change is borderline-impossible because everyone has different goals that gridlock each other.

It's tempting to believe in some sort of easy action that could fix this, but truth be told, I think any simple solution would be horrifying, and I think any good solution is going to take an incredible amount of thought and be more complex than the sort of thing you'd comment on the internet.

Who in the actual fuck uses notepad?