Nah

I just don’t care 🙌

I seriously couldn’t give two fucks about supporting influencers or tech companies. Uploaders can pay for the infrastructure for all I care. Like people use to host websites out of passion, now everything is about profits, and politics, why would I want to support that? Why should I give two fucks about making someone else rich?

Fuck that shit. You can get cracked copies of the YouTube App that give a much better experience.

Parents didn’t beat me enough as a kid.

Who said it’s stopping the sub from functioning?

I get that someone hoarding subs is uncool

So you know your questions are stupid?

Does that mean you believe society is now more right leaning then it was 40 years ago?

Pretty much any non-Marxist economists will favor “the market” over workers.

Just going to point out that “the market” is people’s freedom of choice compounded across society.

Neoliberalism, the predominant ideology in most western countries, is seen as an alternative to conservatism (very much so in the US), but they’re centrists at best, and conservative-lite at worst.

It’s almost like political parties are tied to the values of their voters.

Why would something be stopping them from posting?

Bad in what respect?

There’s different degrees of harm. We all live in society, that means our choices impact other people. The electronics powering the infrastructure we’re using are full of cobalt picked by child hands. You can’t eat almonds without contributing to death.

There’s a significant difference between punching someone in the face vs posting a Facebook article. And in my opinion, trying to exert control over the expression of others is a much more deliberate and direct act.

Sorry, I’m going to try to be less argumentative 😅

Misinformation has a direct cost in lives and money. So it seems to me to be morally good to stop it.

I personally consider things like freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom of expression to be pretty sacred, and to restrict those is a massive ethics issue.

Either way, no one is a citizen of Facebook or Meta. Those platforms can police their content in whatever lawful ways they desire, and if they want to police misinformation that’s no one’s business but their own.

The problem is we do have government putting pressure on tech companies to implement these polices. Zuckerberg has been infront of Congress multiple times. To me that’s just a loop hole.

And why can’t I have an opinion on how Meta polices their information?

People can still consume any information they like. But expecting and requiring Facebook or Meta to be that place seems pretty silly to me.

In this instance though Meta is downgrading their department.

okay, okay, okay, okay… So hear this… We don’t even hold our elected officials accountable for what they say, but we’re pushing restrictions on what citizens can talk about?

Fuck that shit.

People are pissed about Trump, and anti-vax, and whatever else, and are scared of the effect of misinformation, but have you notice our demographics haven’t actually changed? Neither Republicans nor Democrats really have a hand up in elections.

So why are we restricting people’s freedoms of what information they consume?

Lol! So this won’t get to OP, but if you’re ever in this position, call their bluff and submit something to the labour board.

Even if you don’t win, if this is a corporation the company is going to HATE the manager just for being put in that position.

Even if it’s privately owned, no owner wants to be put in that position.

I mean I love it here, but everyone I’ve shown this concept to is immediately confused and intimidated.

I consider this a feature. I think nerds generate better content.

Unfortunately eventually more people will show up, because people need problems solved.

Just a rando passing by. I wanted to say I really appreciate you breaking this down. This type of head to head debating is what I was really hoping to find on Lemmy.

I never called Bob at the hardware store ruling class 🙃 but the ruling class is patriarchal and composed of men.

Okay… So previously in our discussion you dismissed systemic misandry, because “it’s not a power structure”.

If Bob isn’t considered apart of the ruling class, then the oppression of Bob, and other men by the ruling class IS a power structure, and fits your definition of systemic misandry.

And by all means you don’t have to engage with me. The only thing I’m really expecting you to teach me is the biases in your rhetoric, so no pressure.

Men literally can’t suffer from a power structure by your definition of those terms. It’s not that men don’t experience oppression from power structures, it’s that your definition of power structures is oppression by a “ruling class”, and you see men as that “ruling class”, so by your definition they can’t be oppressed by their own power structure. It has nothing to do with men as individuals.

THIS is why you need to expand your perspective. That line of reasoning is complete mental gymnastics. It’s friggen hilarious how feminists justify their own bigiotry, and reinforce the perceptives they claim cause so much harm.

Like you may not believe it’s moral, but your fundamental perspective is “men are in charge”. I find it like… interesting as fuck that this is what feminism has looped back to. Shit like this makes me think that as a species we are really just too petty or too stupid to get past our own biases.

I’m really disappointed in your inability to confront your own biases. You set definitions, I meet them, and then you just move the goal posts.

How you call Bob at the hardware store “the ruling class” is BEYOND me. 99% of men don’t have any sort of ruling authority. So you’ve created a term that holds men to a level of responsibility they don’t have, and then you use that to disqualify the actuality of misandry in society… Fuuuck…

Thank you for taking the time to lay out your biases for me. You’ve really helped me breakdown this shit, and I appreciate that. Sorry for any anxiety I’ve given you, but seriously… you need to expand your perspective outside of feminist rhetoric.

I am aware of what issues affect men.

I don’t see how you can make that claim at all when you don’t even read male forums, much less can’t even put a vague number on your own exposure.

Here’s a good article from a woman that lived as a man for 18 months.

Multiple competing perspectives are crucial. You are not immune from bias.

Its not that I don’t consider it to be misandry its that its not systemic against men as a class. It is not a power structure

But… toxic toxic masculinity is systemic against men as a class, and it does operate on the level of societial and institutional pressures. That fits the critia for a power structure.

And 99% of men are not “the ruling class”, so I just don’t see why you would even make that generalization. Especially when the vast majority of issues we talk about are dependent on societial norms, not institutional structures.

Is that the crux of your argument? Until women hold the balance of leadership roles systemic misandry isn’t a thing?

There exists biases and discrimination against men, but nothing that does so using the structure of a system and through institutional power.

So you wouldn’t actually consider societal pressures against men as misandry? You wouldn’t consider the structures that force men to disregard their own emotions to take on provider roles as misandry. You don’t see men commiting sucide at 3 times the rate of women significant enough of a qualifier? You don’t see how influences like these connect back to men having to be “hard”. You don’t see how men are used and disregarded by society? Like I am literally missing a piece of my body, and it’s just socially accepted.

Like men aren’t just in power, men are pushed towards power.

And… I just realized you acknowledge toxic masculinity. So toxic masculinity does effect all men, on societial and institutional levels, which fits your definition of misandry.

[…] biases and discrimination against men […] using the structure of a system and through institutional power.