Nah, because no alternative can be a complete replacement and if it’s not the exact same experience, people aren’t willing to put that tiniest bit of effort.

Again, look at Reddit as an example, alternatives exist, yet none of them are the exact same because there’s not a comparable size, and because of that people will just pull down their pants and begrudgingly accept reddit’s problems.

And they’re not losing us any time soon, for years I’ve seen people saying that YouTube is going down because they do shit the users don’t like and yet everyone keeps using them and in general making no effort in changing that.

It’s just like Reddit, a few of us left but that didn’t change anything, everyone’s still using it and they’re not stopping any time soon.

Even if not abandoning the platform, it would only take a decent portion of the users reducing their use of the platform for them to feel a punishment of some sort, but nobody’s really willing to do anything other than complain and automatically dismiss any suggestion of an alternative.

So when discussing something like the title of this post, we could talk all day about what we personally believe the answer is, but the legality really is the only objective answer here.

I agree, we can enjoy a long insightful conversation if we talk about morals… Why do you sound like that shouldn’t be the default?

Edit: wait, how in the duck do you expect a single monolithic legal answer in a question that did not provide a legal jurisdiction?

I’m curious, if not from the people discussing, what kind of answer were you expecting?

Lmao why is almost everyone talking about the law? Morals can exist regardless of the law

In the past few years I’ve seen “turns out printer ink is a scam” videos trending at least three times on YouTube, so I’m assuming printer ink.

Afaik, we actually don’t know, we have so many years of research and technique development of running with arched footwear than with archless and barefoot running, there’s no sufficient incentive to research and test it at full Sprint (heh) and thus research for it goes at a snail pace.

As a reference of how important this research is, nowadays there are banned running shoes you can’t use in competition because of the advantage they give you and they have to be previously be approved as opposed to individually banned. A new shoe can shave seconds off a professional runner’s time.

Someone named Fred murdered someone last week. Does that mean that all people named Fred are murderers?? That’s the kind of ridiculous logic you are trying to apply.

Nah, it means you can’t read because that comparison makes no sense unless you read something different.

Let’s say we were talking about Facebook alone, their crimes affect more people than the company has, more people than there are in your country, and even more people than they have active users, do you mean to tell me that’s meaningless because there are thousands of people who registered their t-shirt printing businesses that together will never collect enough money to match what Zuckerberg makes in an hour?

That’s an outlandish way of seeing it, the fact that are people like you who are satisfied with such arguments is part of why these monstrous companies can do whatever the hell they want.

People act like capitalism is some kind of lawless world

Because in practice it is, daily you see news of corporations caught violating the law and as a result being slapped in the hand with a day’s worth of income, which for anyone with half a forehead means a profitable investment.

Again, like almost anything, it’s great if you don’t count the bad part.

I feel like saying that capitalism is not bad but the current implementations are the problem is is like saying the same for communism, they both are great in theory but reality doesn’t vibe with imaginary ideals.

It flows