The main issue with YouTube premium is the price, I can’t imagine that they’re making anywhere near $14 a month from showing me ads that I never click on. I’d love to see a breakdown, including how much is subsiding free users, how much is going to creators, and how much is going into the pockets of shareholders.
I think like most if not all of the people I know would easily pay $5 dollars for premium
Even if there was a single ad that I would want to click on, ever, I would still just simply look up the site instead. The only reason I’ve clicked an ad in the past 20 years was when I did it accidentally. They know that (as in, they know that the click ratio will be low) and I’m sure their goal is just for you to see the ad.
I signed up through Pakistan and got the family plan for $4 AUD a month.
Been going for a couple of years now and no problems.
Also the big benefit is YouTube music, so I don’t need my spottyfi account anymore either
It’s actually great value, I never watched YouTube for entertainment before I got it, now I get to watch people do way too big deep dives on subjects I would normally find boring, but because they go too far it gets interesting
You’ll get an email shortly kicking you off that plan, they’re just working through the list. Had it for 4 years, signed up quite a few others as well. Everyone has been booted over the last 2-3 months.
YouTube and creators make significantly more from premium users than ad-supported. But I’m okay with that. I’m paying for a service, that service works (mostly) great. I get essentially Spotify and ad-free YouTube for that price, and thus get far more bang for my buck than a Max subscription or a Hulu subscription or whatever.
A lot of the features of YouTube Premium (ad-free, downloads, offline music, background play and PiP on mobile, video queues, etc.) are likely available from other YouTube clients, but given how much I use the service I don’t mind paying for it. Especially since using other clients sucks for the creators (unless you’re personally subscribing to everyone’s Patreon, and I don’t know about you but there are a few channels I subscribe to on Patreon and FAR more that I just…watch).
Or, I don’t talk politics to YOU. I talk politics all the time, even people I know hard disagree with me on major things. The thing is, we can stay civil, if hard facts are introduced that prove a point one person is making, or show why someone’s idea is wrong, it will be actually considered. When I say this, it is usually because I know that person can’t do this, or I am in an environment where this can hurt my life, like work.
Even on the minor, basest of chances it gains enough traction to make a tangible difference despite both parties working against it, how could a Socialist party make meaningful change without the other apparatus of the State like the military and legislative branches getting in the way?
Allende taught us what relying on electoralism will get you, even if you win.
Those are called checks and balances, and are there to make sure power is distributed. It’s good that you need buy in from lots of different people.
You don’t want to make a system where a few people can go drastically against the will of most people. So you’d first need to build wide support across the majority of the country or state. That’s the whole point of democracy.
Those are called checks and balances, and are there to make sure power is distributed. It’s good that you need buy in from lots of different people.
Not quite. They are designed so that any genuine threat to Capitalist profits can be stalled out.
You don’t want to make a system where a few people can go drastically against the will of most people.
That’s what America already is and has been since its inception.
So you’d first need to build wide support across the majority of the country or state. That’s the whole point of democracy.
America is not a functional democracy, and needs to be overthrown and replaced with a functional democracy. The State needs to be entirely smashed and a new one built on top of the ashes.
One of the features of a functioning democracy would be ranked choice voting, or something like it, right? So I’d hope we could agree that that would be a good place to start.
As for other factors, what other sort of inherent structural issues to the system do you see, other than that the people currently in those balancing positions don’t agree with you?
One of the features of a functioning democracy would be ranked choice voting, or something like it, right? So I’d hope we could agree that that would be a good place to start.
We have very little chance of getting that just by trying to vibe it into existence, and even if we got it it wouldn’t suddenly mean that parties would cease accountability to the ultra-wealthy donors.
As for other factors, what other sort of inherent structural issues to the system do you see, other than that the people currently in those balancing positions don’t agree with you?
Outside of the fact that Capitalism will always mean the interests of Capital, not people, are going to be represented, there exists no real direct line from the workplace to the region to parliament, the will of the masses is not upheld because the masses do not have democratic participation that matters outside of local elections. The entire system needs to be restructured.
Though campaign donations for advertising? Or bribery?
Both, and more. The US State is designed against change, and the only parties of any federal relevance are the DNC and GOP, who are aligned in service to their donors, and maintain close business ties to the defense industry and banks.
Why do you think voting in national elections doesn’t matter?
Because the US is designed in a manner where you choose which of two far-right parties to support. The DNC always positions themselves as not quite as right wing as the GOP, so no matter how far right the GOP swerves, the DNC trails just behind.
Combined with major issues such as the electoral college, most votes don’t even have an influence on which of the two far-right parties wins, only those in swing states. The only election that matters for the vast majority are local elections.
Electoralism has been a dead strategy for Leftists for centuries, it’s an answered question and the answer is no, Revolution is necessary to enact change.
Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.
the only parties
Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.
two far-right parties
Ranked choice would help. But do you think a large majority of voters are significantly further left than the DNC? Really?
I think the average opinion is between the two parties. So a socialist revolution would be against a democratic consensus. That means you wouldn’t be able to set up a democracy post revolution, because it would be unpopular.
Plus getting rid of the checks and balances is really dangerous in letting people like Stallin, Mau, or Kim Il weasel their way into power and consolidate it to stay there.
Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.
Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can’t vibe beneficial policies into place.
Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.
You cannot vibe policies into place.
I think the average opinion is between the two parties. So a socialist revolution would be against a democratic consensus. That means you wouldn’t be able to set up a democracy post revolution, because it would be unpopular.
There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?
Plus getting rid of the checks and balances is really dangerous in letting people like Stallin, Mau, or Kim Il weasel their way into power and consolidate it to stay there.
Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.
Please read theory, you’re speaking nonsense. No one is advocating for 3 random Communists to overthrow the state by themselves. There can be no revolutionary movement without the support of the masses.
Depends. You’re very interested in avoiding reading books, so I don’t really care to play semantical games with you when you don’t know what we are talking about to begin with.
You have suggestions for books? I’m not going to be able to read more than a couple of pages in the middle of this conversation, but maybe after we’re done?
My point is I don’t think you should be advocating starting revolution till that opinion is close to a majority.
The book I linked in the beginning, Reform or Revolution, goes over the futility of Reform and the necessity of Revolution.
My point is I don’t think you should be advocating starting revolution till that opinion is close to a majority.
Nobody is advocating for prematurely trying to force a revolution, that is Adventurism and is looked down upon by Communists. Instead, build up dual power along democratic lines, so that when the contradictions within Capitalism and Imperialism weaken the State, there exists a ready-made organization that can integrate with the working masses. Read The State and Revolution for the strategy for Revolution, specifically.
Voting is futile when it comes to enacting positive change, and we do need a revolution to actually enact change, but that doesn’t mean we can will a revolution into existence out of thin-air. Revolution is inevitable in Capitalist systems as Capitalism declines out of its necessary contradictions.
It would be great if you would read some of what I have linked.
Most democracies around the world have ranked choice or similar voting systems. Similarly, most have strict regulations on what campaign contributions can be used for. Those did come about by ‘vibing’ (as you call it) rather than revolution.
Really? What revolutionary pressure was it Papua New Guinea under in 2008? What revolutionary pressures were on the UK in the 2000s to further regulate campaign finances?
Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?
But if you’re taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I’m all for it. But I’d hardly call that a revolution. That’s just how the system is designed to work.
In the example of Papua New Guinea, there were major dissatisfactions with money’s role in politics, and LPV was granted as a concession. Had it not been conceded, the system stood risk of destabilization.
Major beneficial changes do not occur because people agree they are good. Major changes do not occur because the public asks nicely. Major changes occur when the ruling class recognizes the risk to their power if they do not bend, lest they break.
A revolution in a democratic manner? We are taking about a violent armed revolution, right? For that, you need a military power structure, and big charismatic leaders to rally behind. There’s no way a revolution would try to hold fair elections while they are fighting.
USSR and PRC had really bad checks and balances since they let dictators consolidate power and form cults of personality. You really think those are good examples of your point? Have you read entirely different histories than I have? Which books do you recommend then?
The USSR and PRC did not have dictatorships, this is a misunderstanding of the Soviet structure and the concept of the Mass Line. Not even the CIA believed the USSR to be a dictatorship. The USSR had a more democratic structure than the US:
Hey. I’m the creator of ComLib, I haven’t been making any EPUBs for some time, but I want to get back into it. Do you have anything you want made into an EPUB? If you don’t, do you have any recommendation for what I should work on next?
Elementary Principles of Philosophy, by Georges Politzer! Extremely straightforward and fantastic introduction to Dialectical and Historical Materialism, in a manner that builds from the beginnings of Idealism, Materialism, and Dialectics, and how over time these changed and built off each other alongside science, technology, and Mode of Production.
Soviet Russia and China were nominally a democracies, but both were controlled by individuals without checks. Stallin and Mau respectively. Again, what history books are you reading that is saying otherwise?
Soviet Russia and China were nominally a democracies, but both were controlled by individuals without checks.
Do you have any proof of this? Historical evidence is much the opposite, as the sources I have linked show you.
Stallin and Mau respectively.
Stalin was not without checks, nor did he control the entire USSR, according to historical evidence including internal CIA memos. Mao was forced out of power due to his failures with the Cultural Revolution, directly proving that checks not only existed, but were used.
Again, what history books are you reading that is saying otherwise?
Wikipedia has a capitalism supporting bias and says this
Like Lenin, Stalin acted modestly and unassumingly in public. John Gunther in 1940 described the politeness and good manners to visitors of “the most powerful single human being in the world”.[6] In the 1930s Stalin made several speeches that diminished the importance of individual leaders and disparaged the cult forming around him, painting such a cult as un-Bolshevik; instead, he emphasized the importance of broader social forces, such as the working class.[33][34] Stalin’s public actions seemed to support his professed disdain of the cult: Stalin often edited reports of Kremlin receptions, cutting applause and praise aimed at him and adding applause for other Soviet leaders.[33] Walter Duranty stated that Stalin edited a phrase in a draft of an interview by him of the dictator from “inheritor of the mantle of Lenin” to “faithful servant of Lenin”.[6]
A banner in 1934 was to feature Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, but Stalin had his name removed from it, yet by 1938 he was more than comfortable with the banner featuring his name.[35] Still, in 1936, Stalin banned renaming places after him.[36] In some memoirs Molotov claimed that Stalin had resisted the cult of personality, but soon came to be comfortable with it.[37]
The Finnish communist Arvo Tuominen reported a sarcastic toast proposed by Stalin himself at a New Year’s Party in 1935, in which he said: “Comrades! I want to propose a toast to our patriarch, life and sun, liberator of nations, architect of socialism [he rattled off all the appellations applied to him in those days] – Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, and I hope this is the first and last speech made to that genius this evening.”[38] In the beginning of 1938, Nikolai Yezhov proposed renaming Moscow to “Stalinodar”.[39] The question was raised at a session of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. Stalin, however, reacted entirely negatively to this idea and, for this reason, the city retained the name Moscow.[39]
Oh, do you have private statements or writings where he was secretly supportive of it? Or are you operating entirely divorced from historical research?
Also:
Stalin often edited reports of Kremlin receptions, cutting applause and praise aimed at him and adding applause for other Soviet leaders.[33]
I was going to say something like This Soviet World or Russian Justice, but they are not actually history books. They are written from a contemporary standpoint. Pat Sloans Soviet Democracy is another contemporary book.
I’m sure cowbee will link you to Blackshirts and reds, that is a history book.
I’m not sure the problem is the electoral system so much as it is the people who vote.
I’m not saying that voting is bad, but even if you tore down the system and replaced it overnight with something better, it’s not gonna change the way people vote. They still vote in neoliberals and conservatives and fascists.
People on the left will have more options further left, but people on the right will have more options further right.
Fixing the electoral system is still a thing to strive for, and it’ll be a positive change; just temper your expectations
There’s tops you can buy really cheap that you can put in a bottle and have a very cheap bidet. I think for many people it’s a struggle to change their mind that this is also OK and it doesn’t have to cost thousands of $$$
You can also use a water bottle or watering can, although I can’t really recommend that experience but that’s what people who are socialized to use them do when they can’t afford/install a proper one.
For Capitalism there should be multiple different money scoops, some better designed than others. There should also be a greased-up rope that leads from the unicycle-bar to the top, showing that it’s theoretically possible to rise to a different class, it’s just practically impossible.
Capitalism is a dynamic system that evolves over time. The general mechanics of the system lead to increased capital concentration over time, so late stage capitalism starts to look largely indistinguishable from feudalism.
It’s so lazy to describe capitalism backsliding towards feudalism as “late stage capitalism”. If capitalism actually had “stages”, you’d have to progress forward to reach later stages. Backsliding towards the feudalism that birthed capitalism isn’t some kind of “late stage”, it’s capitalism failing and feudalism reasserting itself.
It obviously does have stages that progress towards each other, and the reason it progresses in a certain way is due to mechanics of the system. It’s not backsliding towards anything, it’s evolving under the selection pressures encoded in its rules. Incidentally, this is what the game of monopoly illustrates. Everybody starts on even footing and over time, through competition, all the capital accumulates with a single player. This happens regardless how many times you play the game.
It’ intellectually lazy to think that feudalism just magically reasserts itself without thinking about the process that leads to capitalism turning back into feudalism.
Politics is literally the rules of society which are the pressures on human behavior. People behave in a way that the conomic/political system rewards, and avoid behaving in the way it punishes. Amazing that this could be a difficult concept for people to understand, yet here we are.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.