They did, and we’re really up front about it being an opt-in thing, if I remember correctly. Might have started that easy with Microsoft, too. But they can’t resist enshitifying.
It still does it. The only thing is that the awareness of this feature was spread in a way to make it sound like it was just stealing your internet for nothing (which looking at it one way, it was) so most people just turned it off.
Honestly that can be a good thing, especially if you have more than one windows PC in your household, it’s only downloading them once then sharing the updates about over the LAN
Studies have shown that in places where porn is blocked, rape occurs at higher frequencies than in places where that is not the case, possibly due to higher levels of feelings of frustration and repression. This may be only one website now, but if others likewise follow the trend out of fear of litigation… then Texas may become a much more dangerous state to live in in the very near future, even compared to what it already is now.
Would you be okay with letting children freely watch people having sex? The issue is not with freedom its with what we allow minors to see. I dont know how it is possible to stop this, but I agree its a problem that needs to be addressed if possible.
I mean, unintentionally, but I’ve been walked in on by my little one before. You can’t always control what your kids are gonna see.
It isn’t rocket science; it’s education. Being sexually repressed is a choice - a bad one. Sit down with your kids, teach them the birds and the bees, and maybe they won’t end up with a completely unrealistic view of sex.
Sexual repression is the American way. Americans wonder why Europeans are buckwild in this regard, and it’s because they have healthy conversations about sex and regard it as natural. They still have laws involving minors and all that, but their view is much more humanistic.
Unless the internet is dismantled and containerized, there’s no realistic way to prevent minors from viewing porn. The problem is that American parents have puritanical views on sex and rely on prohibition rather than being uncomfortable and having a chat with their kids about one of the most natural things humans engage in because they themselves are prudes. It’s the same reason people get all wound up when they see a pair of boobs, because they view them as sexual objects and not yet another part of the human anatomy. Mind boggling, but that’s religious influence for you.
Important to always remember America started because a bunch of hyper religious folks thought the Church of England was too permissive, named themselves “Puritans”, and sailed off to a new land. And many still hold to those warped values today
Seeing sex accidentally of your parents is different than porn. Porn is unhealthy and is ruining minors and adults lives. If we have the capability to stop minors form seeing porn, then everyone should be on board with that.
First sentence, I agree. Second, factually incorrect. 3rd, i agree, parents should be monitoring their children and teaching them about birds and bees for their age, giving them knowledge so they dont go looking cause they are curious.
Nothing said restricts websites in a whack a mole fashion as this will never work. Kids will always find a way around restrictions.
Crime is ruining people’s lives, if we can just make everyone demonstrate that they aren’t committing crime at any given time, crime will go down. So everyone should be on board with that.
Let me be direct. You are not able to understand the difference between something happening at a specific physical location, and access rights to that, vs something accessed via property not owned by that place. You, for whatever reason, either cannot, or refuse, to acknowledge that accessing data, on a device you own, puts the onus on you to stay within the law. If your kids are accessing some strip club’s stream, on devices you bought them, or on your property, then it is you that needs to make sure they don’t. Not the strip club, not the streaming platform, not the ISP. These “think of the children”, reactionary laws, that place parenting responsibilities on outside entities, are simply wedges to reduce protections of liberties from the government. This is moral panic 101.
You are sealioning. It’s literally all you do. You pretend to put forth a reasonable argument, but you ignore absolutely everything anyone else says, and then try to trap them with what you think are clever questions. But you’re just a pigeon shitting on a chess board claiming victory.
And you keep proving you are incapable of realizing that what you are saying is not the same as what is happening in REALITY. Your premise is foundationaly flawed. Accessing a porn site, and walking into a strip club, are completely different things. You, however, only seem to be able to understand that both have naked people in them, so they are the same.
It’s illegal for a kid to walk in a strip club, it’s also illegal for a kid to access porn. The difference is that the strip club has a physical door you can stop the kid from passing through. You can see, and physically interact with, the kid at the strip club. On the internet you do not have that. A kid can not change themselves to be someone else, and have reasonable proof that they are an adult, and in a location where this is legal, at a strip club, like they easily can online. With less than an hour with google, and some basic computer software, a child can easily make themselves look anyway they want to a porn site, ISP, platform, etc. The best one can do with the strip club is provide a fake ID if you look like you could be old enough. Guess what? If they do this it is THEIR fault, not the strip club’s. The strip club can say “hey they had an ID and look like they are old enough” because they can physically interact with them. False identification is what is happening when a child accesses porn. This time they have no physical person there to examine though. They are saying “yes I am legally able to get on here” and, since there is no reasonable way to make sure this is true, they get let in the door. If the legal penalty changes to the site provider, who exists in a REALITY where there is no reasonable way to ensure someone is who they say they are, then there is no reasonable way they can adhere to a law, thus effectively creating a blanket ban of online porn without having to say “we made something ruled to have first amendment protections illegal”.
If parents, who know, and have more control over, their child than anyone else, can’t stop them, what in hell makes you think some outside entity, who can only interact with them via layers of abstraction, could possibly do so? All this shit does is make kids learn how to mask their locations, and fake their credentials online, which is not hard to do. The only reasonable person to hold responsible for this is the child’s parents/care givers. The onus of liability has to fall on them. Even places like China can’t keep people from faking their identities online, yet you want to saddle porn sites with a legal burden if they can’t. But you don’t really want to stop children from accessing porn. You want porn to be illegal for everyone.
Feel free to do you own research, I am not going to do it for you. “BUT THAT MEANS IT DOENST EXIST!!!” Sure, whatever you want to believe, feel free, there is no convincing people that want to believe something.
What’s your point? Are you advocating for increased rape here? What problem needs to be addressed? Kids watching porn? My kids don’t. I don’t know what this post has to do with that, but the Texas government isn’t protecting my kids here.
If you do not want something - an abortion, a vaccine, porn, to own a gun, etc. - then the solution is simply: do not take it. Beyond that, why heap heavy burdens upon other people, rather than offering to help?
I am saying that “children watching people having sex” is not the issue here. Some few sickos aside, I think MOST people are agreement on that point. The issues are all the other issues surrounding that topic - e.g. who should be the ones held responsible for stopping that.
Like, why not the parents? It is exceedingly easy to block websites from a home router, and from devices such as ipads, so why should the website be the one upon whom all of the blame and burden should go to? Will Amazon be next, b/c it is possible to find sex toys on it? What about Wal-Mart, b/c you can purchase dangerous ammunition there? For that matter, any child can go into a gun show and see rifles and ammunition on display - why are those not banned? Children have even been known to be able to purchase those weapons, which are literally lethal - which is far worse than merely seeing some skin!!!
Fwiw I think you mean well, but are missing the nuances of this discussion. Children will end up seeing porn - someway, somehow, I guarantee you that it is possible, b/c that is simply how the internet works. It is like playing whack-a-mole and you can’t stop them all, especially like 90% of all domain names are already registered to porn and pirate websites. This law will not have the effect that it is intended to stop - and there is a goodly chance that it will make things worse actually, bc when people go off the well-trodden pathways, they will find themselves in the… darker corners of the internet.
Then again, I am not a lawmaker, so what do I know. I was just sharing my thoughts, in case they would be of interest to you.
Sex as a whole should be demystified as a culture. I’m sure most people got into porn in general out of curiosity and the taboo nature of it certainly only makes it more enticing.
What we need is sex education that is so comprehensive/ in depth that it’s mind numbingly boring.
Make them memorize the PH value of the uterus and how they affect the alkili levels of the spermatosa.
Just bog them down with the details and then they will give so much less of a shit about sex/porn in general.
It’s the parents job to parent, not the government or third parties.
There are numerous less problematic tools parents can use from parental controls to automated local monitoring to good ol fashion monitoring to good (read: not “abstinence only”) sexual education.
I wonder how many adults here saw porn as a kid? If we’re being honest, probably the majority. Kids don’t find youporn unless they’re looking for it.
There is a highly effective way of preventing kids accessing porn, by being a parent and watching them (ie, put the computer in a public area) and also installing porn blockers in parallel. That’s the solution.
The problem with laws like this, is that they’re easy to abuse and they’re created by people who don’t understand technology either (so they’re happy to make tech less useful, or they’d even ban some of it entirely if they could be to level the playing field).
It’s more important to keep kids away from unsolicited porn specifically and creeps, and that can be some simply by requiring a site warning and monitoring them online
It’s more important to keep kids away from unsolicited porn
That’s how I’ve seen porn for the first time, when I was around 7. From advertisements. Physical ones.
One Slovakian pawn shop chain called “Breva” used this as an advertising strategy. Their advertisement leaflets (put into mailboxes) had nudes. I remember I secretly collected those.
Of course, they were reported for this a couple times, but all that happened was that they got into the news a few times. (Read that as “Free advertising”) Based on news, it seems last occurrence of this was 2017.
I mean, I remember its name because of that, so I guess it worked…
It’s always bonkers (and rather telling) how conservatives always frame anything sex as pushing it directly for children, like not banning porn is the same as launching pornhub Jr.
I guess yall gotta project super hard to cover all the Republicans on the state level in multiple states that have actively been fighting minimum marriage age laws and incest laws.
“NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO TEACH CHILDREN ABOUT SEX, THEIR BODIES, OR CONSENT - until they marry uncle jimbob when they turn 10 and get pregnant”
Pornhub Jr is a great idea. You could have unskippable ads that teach sex ed topics like how to deal with puberty and preventing STIs. It would keep the kids off elsagate and you could satisfy their curiosity about adult topics in an age appropriate way.
I saw printed and video porn right around the time I hit puberty, decades ago, before there was internet in every home. And my parents didn’t have a scrap of it in the house. You think you can stuff that cat back in the bag? You wanna know what actually messed me up though? All the adults in my life absolutely losing their minds at the thought that I might be having sexual thoughts as a young teen. The guilt, shame, and denial of information is what messes up kids, because if they never told us anything, and made us feel horrible about it, surely we’d never have sex before marriage! Be careful, that can backfire on you.
Your kids are gonna see naked people doing it. You need to come to terms with that inevitability, and become the kinds of parents they can feel comfortable asking questions. Of course, growth is hard, and way too many parents delude themselves into believing that bringing some poor kid into this world bestows them divine wisdom and ultimate authority over what’s best for that kid, and never learning another damned thing again. It doesn’t. Parenting is a responsibility and a journey, not a coronation. Growing up doesn’t stop when you have kids. You cannot shield them from reality. It’s your job to guide them through it; to raise them into adults, not to keep them children forever.
You certainly have no right, or even ability, to legislate the nature of reality for others until you feel safe. That deluded fantasy is far more poisonous to society than people having sex on camera. It simply does not matter if you’re uncomfortable with an aspect of parenting. The world does not give a fuck. Nobody ever said parenting was comfortable. Accept what you cannot change, and help your kids become functional adults. You cannot imagine how much I wish my parents had.
Looks like you didn’t read or understand anything I said.
It doesn’t matter whether any of us are okay with them seeing porn or not. They are going to see it. Do you think you can put that cat back in the bag? Do you think it matters whether your kids can come to you with questions WHEN, not if, they have questions about sex? The actions I think need to be taken are people like you growing up and learning how to actually parent.
You might as well ask whether we should be ok with them finding out about extinctions.
Why do you think it needs to be prevented? Do you seriously still think it’s possible to prevent? Do you think it matters whether your children can come to you about questions when they inevitably look at porn and have questions?
I have answered your question several times. I don’t care in the slightest whether you’re unhappy with my answer. I don’t think it matters whether we’re okay with it or not. It’s going to happen. There is no such thing as putting that cat back in the bag. I saw it when I was young, and it did me no harm. What did me harm was people like you.
You didn’t like my answer, but that does not mean I didn’t answer it. You only think I can answer your question with yes or no. If I say no, you’ll ask me why we’re arguing. If I say yes, you’ll accuse me of being a sexual deviant. Either way, you’ll refuse to answer mine, because you don’t have the courage to even consider my questions inside your own head. But I don’t care what your answer is. I just want to see you do the impossible, and think.
Children seeing porn is the lesser evil in a choice of that or authoritarianism. The police are not allowed to just come onto property and demand everyone there prove they have the right to be. Does that mean that lots, and lots, and lots, of people enter property when they aren’t allowed? Yes, does this mean that sometimes people get away with serious crimes? Again, yes. However the downsides of the 4th amendment are lesser than having cops forcing everyone they don’t know to prove their identity and that they aren’t doing anything wrong.
The 1st amendment means that people will be exposed to things, considered speech for legal purposes, that are not good for them. This is less bad than the government getting ever more control over speech. In order to to have freedom you will have to accept that bad things will arise from it.
Uh, not thats not a slippery slope argument… Its an argument about how if there are things happening then we should stop them, even if you think its authortarian. So if we were able stop children looking at naked people, then we should do that too.
I didn’t avoid the question. You made a a bad comparison.
If the strip club was streaming, and children could access it via their home computers, then no the strip club should not be held responsible. That is the parent’s job, and if the parents suck, the parents need to suffer the consequences, no one else.
However, you have made statements that make me doubt there are very many authoritarian measures you wouldn’t agree with, in regards to restricting access to porn, because you are one of those people who blames a disproportionate amount of society’s ills on porn.
You zero clue how much I blame anything on porn. I blame most of societies problems on weak useless men and ignorant people that how no clue what reality is.
And you totally are missing what I am saying, let me be very direct; children accessing porn is not supposed to be happening, but it is. We stop it in real life, but dont do anything about it on the internet.
Did you know that a child accessing porn is illegal? Did you know that, when it is done in their on, or with, their property, the people responsible for that are the parents of those children, and no one else? The only thing these bills do are shift the regulation of personal life onto the government.
Yes we need a STRONG MAN to lead us all to REALITY! We just need leader who is a STRONG MAN that doesn’t get distracted by pussy, weakling things, like freedoms, context, and viability. Just push government force onto everything I don’t like! That will bring people to REALITY!
My kids dont get open access to the internet alone.
If you hadnt noticed, most parents suck, they give their kids cell phones and social media. If kids are not “policed” by their parents and do things that are directly harmful and illegal like drinking alcohol, should the police intervene?
People like you make me want that feature where you can’t see replies with more than 10 downvotes over upvotes. God, I lost so many braincells reading about your idiotic opinions and your inability to accept reality…
Here’s a couple. Not a regional porn ban = more rape like previous poster said, but this is the most relevant data I could find. …and this data isn’t great. My main takeaway from this search is that we need to direct some actual research into what access to porn does vs doesn’t do. Also specific categories of porn - I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that sexual violence increases with consumption of porn that glorifies rape; but then if porn made a point to model good practices around things like obtaining consent, I’d wager sexual violence probably decrease.
TLDR, it’s a complicated question, so take these with a grain of salt, but among the most credible sources I found, they trended toward porn and rape NOT being positively correlated.
“Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates.”
“The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes [during a period of increased access to porn]. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape.”
Sounds like it works right into their plans for controlling the population by forcing people to give birth then. What a hellscape. I’m so sorry for the good humans that live there.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with the relevant law, this is an incredibly dangerous argument to make against it. It insinuates an innate propensity towards sexual aggression and ignores many other factors that might occur alongside such laws.
There might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about a correlation between areas where where porn is blocked i.e. repressive regimes and rape. Not necessarily a casual effect from one directly to the other, although that might not be able to be ruled out either.
Either way it is a question of fact, so not up to either of our mere opinions. Though I find that it is darn near impossible to find such things these days using Google - it refuses to show “relevant” results and instead tries to show only “recent” ones that it wants to promote, and DuckDuckGo is far too narrow to make that easy. So finding the full unvarnished truth is a research project that I do not want to undertake, though in case it helps to share my remembrance of having read such a thing once I thought I would offer. This is nowhere near my area of expertise so was only a comment not an authoritative statement of definitive fact.
Also there could be other factors involved - e.g. higher incidents of rape in neighborhoods that tend towards being poorer and more heavily religious in nature, e.g. within the United States that would be Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. I don’t recall if the study checked for similar levels of poverty but with different religious leanings - if suitably comparable places could even be found.
So my statement was saying how sad it is that Texas is choosing to become more like e.g. Florida rather than more like e.g. California, or to remain more of its own separate thing as it has done in the past. Becoming “repressive” does not sound conducive to good health (especially women’s health).
If you find it, let us all here on Lemmy know - it looks like people are very interested (I know I would be to see a refresher). The sad part is how this stuff has been known for decades, but people just ignore it - e.g. “just grab 'em by the p$#&y”. There are some, like John Oliver and Innuendo Studios, who are doing fantastic work to spread awareness of matters that need attention (and Jon Stewart is back, sort of:-), but ofc that won’t reach the ears of people who refuse to listen, and instead choose to highly regard those who spread fear and chaos, most likely purely for profit reasons.
That’s… not just a Texas thing, and yeah, bc saturation may have long been passed on that one, so this is newer territory to expand authoritarianism into.
It’s a reference to their video on brown, specifically the part where they change only the background color of a image with an orange square in it and it swings basically from orange to brown
Also your link is broken, the URL should be in the parentheses. And if you want the image as a reply the brackets should be empty with an exclamation point in front and the link needs to end in an image extension.
Potatoes are amazing. They grow easily in a wide variety of soil and produce food which has every nutrient we need except for a complete protein. And, they’re a vegetable, so you can tell someone you’re eating your vegetables and then go to McDonald’s for some frenchy fries
I mean, in fairness, “vegetable” isn’t a scientific term at all, so whether potatoes are vegetables (or tubers, or roots, or something else) is totally up for debate.
But they’re a hell of a lot more of a vegetable than pizza is!
I’ve always used the definition of a vegetable being an integral part of a plant, like a root, rather than a fruiting seed pod evolved to be consumed by animals
Cooking potatoes with skin is still somewhat more nutritious than cooking them without (unless you’re keeping the water for something else, some use it for stuff like pasta)
There are several essential amino acids we need to survive but don’t produce in our bodies. No plant has all of those amino acids, but every animal product does. You can get complete plant protein by consuming multiple different plants, so if a vegan has a varied diet they’re usually fine.
It’s because an app allows them to collect all kinds of telemetry and usage data that they can’t get from a browser. Browsers inherently limit what kinds of data they can collect by walling them off, while an app gives them full control over what they collect.
Large media figures should be held to a higher standard than the average person. Drake specifically should be held to a higher standard because literal children idolize and impersonate him.
Nobody should be ashamed of the history of their people. That encourages some to hide from it. Instead one should not shy away, but try to study and learn from the mistakes of their forebears, so their children might get a better world someday.
Shame for something you yourself have not done, though? Pointless.
I always think about this when I hear people talk about their ancestors or criticize other people’s ancestors. They were other people. Ppl get “proud” of their ancestors siting in a fucking chair eating doritos. Go do something yourself
Basically, the US obsessing about race but refusing to face it’s history with blanket word bans that are frowned upon no matter the context.
The US is clearly not facing their slavery past and instead avoiding the difficult and deeply disturbing vocabulary associated with it.
IMHO there is nothing wrong with the N word used in an history lesson. On the contrary, I think it’s especially important to show younger generations how evil some our ancestors were.
And I say that as a french guy living in a city that was extremely important during the slave trade. We know what our ancestors did, we are not proud of it, we don’t feel responsible for it but we do make sure it’s not forgotten.
I think any view that tries to paint the whole US as obsessing over something is extremely incomplete. So extremely incomplete as to be basically pointless. It’s just a lot more complicated than that, with different groups thinking different things are important.
That being said, I really have never visited a country where race is mentioned as frequently as in the US.
In many European countries I have visited it just didn’t seem relevant.
Sometimes it’s not just a cliché or a prejudice against a nation, it’s just how it is.
I have no doubt at least that the peculiar history of the US has shaped the way racial discourse is prevalent or not in that society.
Would you agree that race is more commonly talked about in the US than in the rest of the world?
I think it’s pointless to ask on Lemmy for an accurate depiction of the importance of race in the american society. You may say it’s too reductive but I think it’s a more productive conversation than your comment. I would much rather have someone politely argue and explain that I’m wrong rather than calling my comment “almost pointless” and basically presenting it as some outlandish and prejudiced caricature of the US.
The “your comment is too reductive and therefore is pointless” could probably be applied to every posts in there. Just saying.
Unfortunately, it’s a complex topic that is sufficiently outside my specialization that I’m unwilling to really dive deeply into it. For instance, if I tried to say whether I personally thought race is more talked about in the US than in the rest of the world, that would just be one random guy’s (me) opinion. What would I be basing it off of, personal travels? That’s not good data.
The only even remotely honest answer I can give is “I don’t really know.”
I have to know what I’m talking about first, for there to be any kind of point.
I think the anti immigration right wing rise across several European countries rn shows that they’ve just never had the dialogue that the US does about race from being such a melting pot, and as such have ignored racial issues and racism in their societies bc they haven’t had as terrible of a racist past as the US (Jim Crow laws, neoslavery, etc) that they have to confront. Now that the globalized world is causing more demographic change in Europe there’s a loooot more anti-immigration and racist rhetoric. That’s not a coincidence.
bc they haven’t had as terrible of a racist past as the US
You do know the Holocaust happened in Europe right?
Other than that, I do agree with you. Europe is still very racist but we like to think we’re not. Just because it’s less talked about, doesn’t mean it’s not there.
The problem with the US is we have the state too much individual rights when it comes to how we handle our citizens. There should be a federal curriculum standards, such as teaching about slavery. Same with voting, especially in federal elections.
IMHO there is nothing wrong with the N word used in an history lesson.
Have you spoken to any [other] people that have been subjected to anti-black bigotry directly about how its inclusion would affect them in a lesson?
I am a white man that had a similar view to you. About 10 years ago I had a conversation with a black classmate about appropriate use of that word. It was my position that it’s too bad we continually empower the word by avoiding it even in dry intellectual contexts and we shouldn’t censor it when reading quotations.
She said:
I know you’re not being racist but it still makes me super uncomfortable to hear you say it.
I made the decision not to say it ever again. Obviously my classmate can’t speak for all black people, every person has different experiences, and reactions will be along a continuum. There might be situations where the educational value of using that word explicitly, outweighs the discomfort it causes. But I think it’s pretty inappropriate for me to ‘whitesplain’ prejudice (and the language of prejudice, and the power… of the language of prejudice)
Teachers have to ask themselves: How much will its explicit use enhance the lesson? How many students are we willing to risk alienating? How much time would we like to spend defending our decision to use the word explicitly? How much of that will be class time?
Even with a lengthy preamble setting the perfect context to use it explicitly with minimal potential for alienating students there’s a significant chance we’ll fuck it up and spend the rest of the class reteaching the class why we think they are wrong to be offended.
Some of them will be disingenuous, some of them will be sincerely offended white soyboys not too dissimilar to me, some of them will be legitimately alienated racialized minorities.
We’d also be implicitly asking the non offended racialized minorities to stick up for us. Their well meaning friends will ask them to weigh in on the subject (and speak for all blacks). It’s not fair to them.
In a context where class time is limited, I have to think that students are best served with more lesson time and less meta-discussion. So I don’t think it’s a good idea to use the word explicitly in educational contexts, unless maybe there’s some sort of vetting of students for the course.
The US is clearly not facing their slavery past and instead avoiding the difficult and deeply disturbing vocabulary associated with it.
Certain individuals and organizations are doing this, sure, but then you have the monumental amount of academic research in the humanities into slavery, you have publicly and privately owned historical sites and museums that explicitly teach about the history of slavery in the United States, and you have a non-trivial amount of media depicting the horrors of slavery. It’s not a monolithic cultural rejection in the same way that a nation like Japan has attempted to totally erase any record of its wrongdoings in the first half of the twentieth century.
Experience shows, that the general population – and people in power especially – are inherently bad at learning from history or even their own mistakes.
Psychopathy can sometimes be a positive asset in politics. This dramatically slows down how quickly we can move anything forward on the larger scales. You just can’t make everyone have the same values, that would destroy the very innovativeness and adaptability that we prize so much.
For instance, had the Israeli PM working on the peace deal never been assassinated and replaced by Netanyahu, our world might look very different today. That one bullet, fired by a psychopath, killed someone who did study history and replaced them with someone who did not.
It was the inverse for me. Windows 7 was always a nightmare to set up drivers, it was common to manually download the wifi drivers from the laptop's brand website. I groaned whenever someone asked me to help set up their PC.
Windows 10 just works out of the box. The only downside for me is aesthetics, I always preferred Aero.
I’m literally going to use windows 10 until it completely stops getting updated, by that point hopefully someone will invent a Linux distro that doesn’t irritate me
I have tried mint, I mostly did like it, but there were just some small things that really got on my nerves. The fact that middle clicking a webpage did nothing was unbearable, that’s how I scroll all the time
It does do something though, it paste directly from the latest info from the clipboard XD. So, if you highlight something, then middle click somewhere else(not just a browser, basically system wide) it will paste what ya highlighted.
default settings, everything on GNU/Linux can be customized. Getting done to change the default is always a struggle. For example it's been decades that in GNUDE the middle button click has been paste, so while it may seem dumb to you that it does that, it's user base expects that to be the default.
But as you've already found in this thread in a meme community, one of the best ways to learn how to customize your system the way you want is to claim in a Linux forum that Linux can't do such and such.
That’s “autoscroll”. It’s under the “Browsing” section on the General page of the Firefox settings. It’s turned off by default, but you just have to check one box to turn it on.
Yeah, it’s cyclical. They’re re-entering their shithead phase.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. The got smacked with those EU antitrust lawsuits and they reset back to Embrace, and started participating in open-source again. Then they started extending by doing shit like buying GitHub and adding even more cool shit to it. Now they’re entering in extinguish phase where they’re doing shit like making it difficult to change default browser, and integrating all their services together without the ability to integrate 3rd parties.
They’ll (hopefully) get smacked with another EU antitrust lawsuit and reset soon.
It’s legal and user pushback - and it’s a battle I’m bored of fighting. I just use Linux, and find it simpler. With Windows, it’s ads, forced updates, ‘upgrades’ that re-enable ‘features’ i never wanted, a billion background services, most of which I don’t need - and more.
Fuck the battle to keep shit from being shoved down my throat.
Makes sense, everyone makes the trade-offs they’re willing to make.
Next best thing to Linux is stripped windows installs like ghost spectre. I dual-boot, myself, but spend most of my time in Linux, with windows being a regrettable but useful occasional tool for gaming.
I’ll say it once and I’ll say it again. Even the father of capitalism thought landlords were parasitic leeches on the economy. Even the father of capitalism hated landlords
Making an investment out of a necessity is immoral any way you cut it.
Health should be public.
Food needs to turn a profit, that’s understandable, but also food food is not finite where the rich can hoard it all… Or maybe that’s their next thing 🤔 nah won’t happen because it’s perishable
That’s what the capital is for. Why hoard something that rots and can’t be easily moved around? Capital knows no borders and actually increases in value just by moving it around.
It’s basically an infinite food hack, but not just for food - for everything
What’s the alternative? Not defending landlords; I genuinely don’t understand. If you don’t have money to buy a home/condo, you’re going to have to rent from someone. Until housing is not subject to scarcity, there will always be landlords.
I might be wrong, but I think even if you changed nothing else about society except abolishing landlording, supply and demand would drive down home costs and force banks to offer mortgages to the people they currently deny. Ideally though, abolishing landlording would be part of a larger change to the way housing works.
Suburbia is lines of houses with the same items in them not being used. Full of people who become petty tyrants comparing about a car being parked to close or a yard not neat enough.
If you start to question how we should live together it’s easier to see a way for landlords to cease to exist.
Henry George wrote about this extensively. The solution is a tax on all land at just under 100% of it’s rental value. That allows landlords to profit from the structures they build and maintain, but not from the land itself. It disincentivizes real estate speculation, lowering the cost of land and housing and improving accessibility to people who use it productively.
Two (current) real world solutions: Most people in China outright own their homes with no mortgage, as the government owns the land itself and subsidizes housing purchases and even outright gives housing to its citizens. Similarly, most people in Singapore live in subsidized government housing.
If so many jobs didn’t stupidly require college degrees and if college wasn’t stupidly expensive and if wages had kept up with production for the last 50+ years and if corporations werent allowed to own vast swaths of housing and if the world wasn’t run by greedy power hungry capitalists then maybe, just maybe, PERHAPS people might have a few extra bucks to be able to afford something.
Just a thought. Maybe, the issue is money has been taken from the people in so many ways.
Landlords are the reason housing is so expensive. By buying up realestate and renting it out, landlords are directly contributing to the scarcity. Personally housing should be a human right. If you don’t want to go that far here’s a different solution. Literally just make apartment’s buyable rather than rentable. Don’t allow landlords to buy up all this realestate thus raising prices by creating a fake scarcity of housing. If landlords didn’t own all of it, and people could buy apartment’s rather than rent them, the prices would lower and become more accessible for people
Adam Smith saw the nobility with more money than the workers (craftsmen) so he came up with a system that pays based on hours put in
In a capitalist society everyone makes the same amount per hour and it’s just the one who works the most. There can also be no inheritance because that is profiting off someone else’s work
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.