Could you elaborate on what you mean by that as a response to my post?

That is not at all what i am saying at all. That’s the second one on this topic to twist my words to fit what they think is the kind of person I am. If you want to read negatively you’ll find it everywhere.

Let me state the obvious here. People who are in this situation have to make some tough decisions. I know it sucks, I have friends who went through this and yet I can’t even begin to imagine how tough it gets first hand. It does drastically change their lives for the better, but it has consequences. They lose family, they lose friends, and in case of the subject at hand they might lose their job too.

That sucks, but for the vast majority it’s still worth it big time in order to be yourself.

Also, what you are saying applies to the individual. For the government, and for things such as these sporting events, they will not ‘be’ female until they undergo their transformation.

Of course that’s not what I mean. You’re missing the entire point of my post because of the way I describe the moment of the procedure itself.

Sometimes you make a decision in life that affects your future in a meaningful way. Becoming a trans is one of those things. Sadly there’s no good solution to the problem it causes in sports right now so the only possible answer is to not have them in the competition.

They are not saying to leave them behind, and comparing this to not participating in life is an unfair exaggeration. The situation is far too complicated for that. It’s not just about politics here, there’s other people involved that would be put at a disadvantage, others that would abuse the situation to gain money, etc.

And yes, I’m well aware of the injustice being done to trans people on every possible level, and that needs to change, this battle itself though is just not the same.

*Edit: I’m reading further down that this “problem” it causes might not be as big as I heard it was in the media. So take this comment with that in mind if you will. It only proves the complexity of the issue though.

I don’t think trying to control is the best way of looking at it. There’s a hive mind about the fediverse that has a purpose, that wants to protect it as part of the identity of it. So a collective of instances banding together to keep that intact seems right up its alley.

We’re all still animals following basic instinct. When we feel that our “herd” is threatened, we get ugly fast.

It’s really easy to play on those feelings.

Well if someone causes a dangerous situation, why not both?

Why? Who made the rules about exchanging data? And it is an exchange of data for a service, it’s just not as obvious as you might want it to be. But nothing comes for free.

Hey I’m not saying I like the big company ethic scathing that’s been going on around the world, but it is how our society currently works.

They are. They provide you with a service for your data. It’s called YouTube. And if they don’t have a place to show you ads, the data is useless because no one will use it. It’s a closed loop.

And even if you don’t agree with it, it’s still a company selling a service and it can do whatever it wants to earn money from it. There’s nothing unethical about that.

Hell yeah they should, I’m not disputing that, but there’s so many here pretending like it’s somehow unethical for Google to fight against ad blockers, and I am arguing that.

Google’s main source of income is ads across the board, so fighting adblockers is certainly in their best interest

That’s fair

So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free? Why? What does Google owe us?

They only have the monopoly if we give it to them. I find their model fair, I use their service a lot. if they overprice me I’ll find another form of entertainment.

But you are right, people see YouTube as a necessity at this point. I’m trying to remind you, it’s not.

Yes, thank you! I’ve been downvoted previously in a topic similar to this one. I know change can be hard for some people but we always knew this would come sooner or later. A huge company wants to make money off their service and people here act as if it’s their right to find a way around it. It’s not. You were just lucky that there was one. Either find other entertainment or accept that you will get ads.

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Why is everyone so worked up about a huge company wanting to earn even more money, we know this is how it works, and we always knew this was coming. You tried to cheat the system and they’ve had enough.

You would rarely buy random cd’s or whatnot. You would hear one or 2 songs on the radio, or from a friend, or you already loved the artist. You’d loan it from the library, or spend 30 min listening to it in the store.

Then you would come home and set it on repeat for weeks. Even the tracks on the CD that were less good, you would appreciate.

I definitely preferred how much I cared for the music back then a lot more. Even pre-Napster.

Maybe you should start. They highly likely do more for climate change than you do.

Exactly. And just because those that can have the most impact refuse to do so, doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t try.

If they jump off a bridge, would you? I wouldn’t, I’d celebrate, with a nice cocktail with a mushy straw.