or even pseudo-incriminated for attempting to maintain our own life.
It seems so stupid that I’m like a suspect for wanting an exchange of information without dropping my pants and bending over. No, I don’t want cookies. Yes I want to read the article but no, I don’t want to “sign up.”
It makes me feel like being a f*cking hermit. But I prefer to pirate. Even though I’m not that good at it. Screw them. I got two private trackers, a VPN, and I hope that’s enough.
It seems so strange to me that everyone buys the bullshit that personal data is worth very little.
The data brokerage industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry. Yet, there are only ~8 billion people in the world, many of whom don’t have internet access or have very little data being traded. Thus it’s reasonably safe to assume that an average regular internet user’s data is worth somewhere in the region of $1,000 per year.
These companies don’t do anything with the data. We create the data, they collect it and sell it, then whoever buys it is the one that actually makes something from it. If we allow the brokers a very generous profit margin, they are still stealing $500-700 from every one of us, every year.
ChatGPT, summarize this for me like I’m a geriatric politician.
Personal data worth a lot. 8 billion humans exist. Industry is multi trillion of profit. Even at only a single trillion that’s 1000 dollars per person a year. It’s way more than 1000.
That would mean $8T total. No way it’s that much. Maybe $350 per American.
That would mean $8T total.
You’re forgetting that many of the 8 billion people don’t have internet or have very little data being shared.
If we assume 8 billion people and $1 trillion industry, it’s only $125 a year. That’s the worst case.
If we assume 4 billion people and $4 trillion industry, it’s $1,000 a year. That’s the best case. Perhaps a little too optimistic, but it’s also very easy maths.
Working backwards from my $500 user value with 30% margin for the brokers, that’s around $715 in the industry. This could be made from 6 billion people and an industry value of $4.29 trillion.
Maybe $350 per American.
Using the method above, that would be $500 in the industry, and with 6 billion people the industry would be worth $3 trillion.
To get more accurate numbers we would need a specific value for the industry. However, I think we can confidently say the value of user data is in the hundreds of dollars, not pennies as is commonly suggested.
I only summarized what the other person said. Bring your complaints to him.
Some nations would be worth more per person to a data broker than others. How many billions have no Internet? How many have little money to spend on the companies the data broker sells to? Americans and Europeans would be at the top of the list, per capita, and could easily exceed $1000, and the total would just barely top 1 trillion.
I don’t know Google who makes all their money in data is a trillion dollar company. I’d say the industry is worth more then a trillion.
Wait is this account a bot that can be summoned with the magic incantation chatgpt?
Nah I’m a demon that can be summoned with the incantation of “Cat gee, be tea”
You must be incredibly busy. I hope the underworld pays overtime
Bad bot
And you are a bad human :)
Money good, gimme gimme.
Haha this made me chuckle. Thanks :)
That’s including showing the ads. The data itself isn’t worth that much unless people are viewing them.
As far as I’m aware the valuation is just data brokering - ie, the people collecting data from apps and selling to advertisers.
Then I don’t believe it, Google makes about 200B in advertising revenue a year, serving about a quarter of the internet ads.
Advertising online is not even a trillion dollar market, how can just the data be bigger? Maybe if you count it being sold resold ten times
I’ve finally run some actual numbers, after finding a source for the data brokerage industry value (much lower, $319 billion in 2021). The link to your instance’s version is here: https://lemmy.world/post/10892972
TL;DR my conservative estimate is that every user is owed roughly $40 per year - but this doesn’t include Google or other businesses who keep and exploit proprietary datasets, rather than selling the raw data.
The efficacy of advertising is sold primarily by advertisers. It’s possibly worth a vanishing fraction of what these ghouls say it’s worth. But so long as buying it and acting like a greedy invasive bastard is more profitable than ignoring it, even by a tiny margin, corporate giants will keep doing it, since the cost to them is a rounding error.
The industry enabling this is large because they get to sell the same garbage to so many bastards.
Data is worth more than gold, and much easier to mine.
If you’re online. You need to assume that your data is being used without your permission whether you like it or not. Nothing is going to change. Look at the hordes of brain dead idiots who use tiktok
Nothing is going to change.
That’s the wrong attitude to have. It can change, and arguably it will change once a critical mass of people realise the value being stolen from them.
You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts. The people who make nuts and bolts don’t know how to build a car, but they’re still paid a fair value based on the fact their product can be used in cars.
We don’t know how to do anything with our data, but we should be paid based on the value derived from it by those that do.
This problem affects everyone, including the people who make laws. It is entirely feasible that we can get enough people on side to change things and make it more fair. Incumbent businesses won’t like that, because it will reduce their profits (100% down to 30%), but what they’re doing now is absolutely wrong. They’d still be taking the piss at 30%, but at least that’s more in line with other industries.
That critical mass will never come because people don’t feel the data has been stolen from them.
Rather, it’s traded in exchange for whatever online services they use.
And to them it’s a decent trade.
I think that’s fair if the service is free. If I’m paying for it then they shouldn’t be double dipping with my data as well.
But that’s the thing, that isn’t what’s happening. The website is provided free of charge.
Then, the website tries to shoehorn in another, separate transaction and hide it in the fine print, where you give up your data free of charge.
There is a huge amount of deception involved. The whole point of my comment here is to try and dispel that deception, by putting hard numbers to it to show that there is significant value being taken.
I don’t want their money. I just want them to leave me alone. Now, the politicians? They would love their money. And I’m sure big tech lobbyists are already giving them some
That would be nice, I agree. However, like you say, the data is already being used, and it’s much harder to put the cat back in the bag. Rather than trying to do so and ban all data collection, it’s much more practicable to embrace it but ensure that people are at least fairly compensated.
Whatever you are getting your hands into remember that there’s plenty of free alternatives and libre products available in the public domain. Supporting these is a good way to unsupport the closed counterpart.
As an OSS advocate, I fully agree. Sadly, OSS alternatives have to compete with easily accessible, slick and well-integrated products that are aggressively positioned. Just imagine all the steps you need to go through, just to install Fennec from F-Droid.
I just installed Fennec from F-Droid and it was like three steps. Search, install, and confirm install. I guess if I didn’t already have F-Droid, it would be more steps to install it, but that’s not too hard either, and you only have to do it once.
It’s easy for you and me. But imagine you’re Joe Everyman. First off, you need to know about F-Droid and where to download it. Then confirm that the browser can install software. And this is where I would imagine many users second-guessing if everything’s legit. And after it’s installed, you’ve got two separate app-stores to deal with. You need to know what you can install where.
If I extrapolate from my mother-in-law, who still can’t wrap her head around the concept of an app-store, let alone alternative browsers, that’s just too much hassle for most people.
Not so much ago i was handled an iphone and i had no idea how to unlock it and use it as there aren’t any keys or instructions on the device. Joe Everyman is just used to it but in fact iphones are not easy to use. I think this really thread can also hint something, some OSS may not be easy to use or well supported but it is designed to be open and accessible. Proprietary software and standards puts you through a set of restrictions for example having to register and give away all your personal informations to download binaries.
Dude seriously. I use one for work, I’m relatively tech savvy and can intuitively figure stuff out. Iphones are obtuse by design, they want people to use them and get so used to them that they can’t switch to other options. I’ve used other phones and other OSs and it takes me a little bit and some Intuitiveness to figure it out but I get there, it’s been a pain with every single step for iphones.
I have had the identical experience; Samsung user who got an iPhone from work.
When I receive a text from a number not in my contacts there is a blue link prompt asking if I want to block them. However, there isn’t any prompt to add them to my contacts. Doing that is two non-intuitive clicks away.
LOTS of things like that.
Just today I got a called from one of my inspectors and I accidentally swiped it away. I saw that the call notification went to the top so I tried swiping down like it intuitively would be, it was just bringing down the lockscreen wallpaper. I missed the call and ended up having to just call him back.
I remember a message appearing on my android device when I first started using F-droid, something like: do not trust any programs you can download from anywhere except places grubby capitalists can molest you and feast on your data.
“Allow install from unknown source” permission for f-droid, and verifying the f-droid download’s checksum are too complicated/involved for many people, especially when compared to what another commenter rightly called “aggressively placed” spyware-laden alternatives.
Nobody verifies the checksum. It installs just fine (probably) if you don’t. Just like reading the EULA.
Sure, it’s a good step if you’re extra paranoid, but otherwise people are just allowing installs from unknown sources and immediately installing, especially since Android takes you straight to those settings when you try to launch a downloaded APK.
Fdroid shows Fennec with anti features, tracking to Mozilla and Google, and proprietary upstream code. Is there a good fdroid browser without anti features?
Exactly
If you want to pirate, pirate. But there are plenty of free and public domain sources of entertainment and information.
Same with software. It won’t be exactly the same experience but if the goal is truly an altruistic attempt to not give money to bad companies or avoid tracking or whatever… there are ways.
I pirate shit. I am not going to pretend it is some holy struggle. I want things that I don’t/won’t pay for.
I recently converted to Linux and am loving the FOSS environment. Together with my NAS which covers my “cloud storage” and media server needs, I’m having an awesome time not having to give away money and/or my information just to use my own hardware.
I’m not very into privacy, but I am very passionate over this. I think it’s generally under the umbrella of the “degoogled” movement. It’s ultimately about having private, sustainable, and FOSS for as much as your digital life as you can.
deleted by creator
Interesting… I’ll have to check that out.
Thx for the info.
I’m not so much interested into reading a bunch of west propaganda but it could be useful for some references.
Yeah it’s weird how privacy and piracy have blended together over the years.
With some games you need to pirate them if you don’t want a Russian nesting doll of launchers and accounts that are able to leak your information and fill your computer with bloat.
I do find the argument interesting some YouTubers try to make about ad blockers being a form of piracy.
To be fair, it makes sense to liken the use of ad blockers with piracy. Consuming the content without paying for it either way, either without directly paying yourself or without indirectly paying through watching ads. Doesn’t change that ads on most parts of the internet are extremely invasive and far too much.
I feel fully entitled to protect myself from the ads because of the problems with them. But I don’t feel the need to lie to myself about the fact that I’m consuming content without paying for it in some way. Then again I support some content creators that I feel deserve it. Not sure if that helps offset it somewhat or not, but I don’t really care that much either.
Please stop doing this. It just gives bad actors better tools to fuck content creators.
If ads arent chosen and paid to the content creators directly then its a damned cancer on the entire industry and you, by giving them this, are supporting wage theft at best and exploitation at worst
How many content creators have been demonetized for no reason at all yet ads are still injected into their content anyway?
Sorry for being angry about this, but if we as a whole accept this then we are watching enshitification in action and im sick of the amazing thing that is the internet continually get worse
No, I fully believe you’re making different issues into one, which is dishonest argumentation.
Adblockers are functionally equivalent to piracy, the fact that some entities abuse others is a different issue. It’s the same as with gambling mechanics in games, the fact that most people would think that those are predatory and bad does not change that not paying for the game is piracy. It’s possible to be more nuanced about things than to group everything together.
v
Your spelling also doesn’t help your credibility
If you can’t see past someone’s spelling mistakes then your credibility is the one I think is in question. Just ask me to fix it if the meaning is unclear or ambiguous instead of attacking my credibility(pot kettle black). Perhaps I did make some spelling mistakes, but do you know if english is even my first or third language?
It’s interesting that you both tell me not to connect one issue and also its downstream effects, but then turn around and say that my argument lacks nuance(if that’s a fair summary of your response, as I take it to be)
I’m saying that calling adblocking piracy has downstream effects that complicate the larger issue of the enshitification of the internet in general, and you want to boil things down to a simple binary of circumvention, i assume. But I reject the statement that adblockers are piracy without explanation.
So please, explain it so that the basis for this opinion can be understood instead of simply repeating it. What is it that makes adblocking equate to piracy in your opinion?
I’m passionate about this. I see it very much like a repeat of introducing micro transactions in the form of DLC into gaming which ruined gaming for me and many other people. Enshitification seems rampant these day. I believe that ive seen it in action before and that im seeing it again with this idea that adblocking is piracy.
Oh, I could see past your errors, I was just pointing it out. Errors do not help credibility, almost ever. (There might be some times it does, but I’m not sure I would want to gain credibility with people that would take such as helping my credibility). If you disagree with this I don’t know what to tell you. I also didn’t actually attack your credibility (I don’t really think you have any, but that’s a different matter), but made an observation that you could make sure your writing is better to not detract from your credibility. With the amount of tools available to avoid spelling mistakes it doesn’t really matter whether English isn’t a language one is perfectly proficient in.
I have clearly expressed what makes adblocking equate to piracy. It’s in the first paragraph of the first comment of mine you replied to. It should be fairly straight forward. Consuming without paying.
I reject your premise that it’s like microtransactions in gaming, unless you specifically mean in “free” games. Of course microtransactions and a lot of DLC for paid games are enshittification, but that’s more like asking you to pay more to access a new episode of a show or a scene from a show you’ve already paid for. Not near the same as having ads to pay for the costs of delivering content (and I include producing the content in “delivering” it).
Now, if you instead make the argument that the amount of ads or the contents of ads are enshittificating services that let you consume content without directly paying for it yourself I can agree. But not that ads themselves are enshittification. Nor that avoiding to pay to consume content isn’t piracy. I just think it’s self-deception to claim that not paying by blocking ads isn’t piracy. I have also made it clear that I think blocking ads is perfectly reasonable and what should be done. It may not be piracy in the legal sense, but circumventing systems meant to pay for something seems perfectly in line with the colloquial sense of the word.
Somewhat of a tangent
Now, do I think the internet would be better if there were no ads at all? Yes, of course. But do you think it would be better that people would have to directly pay to use services on the internet instead? That would mean poorer people would be barred from a lot of online services. Because it costs something to host services on the internet and that has to be paid somehow. And people generally congregate to a small subset of sites which thus get a lot of traffic and thus high costs that has to be paid somehow. Sure, you could have some sites being public forums made available by government and thus “free to use” because they payment is through taxes, but that’s generally not how businesses operate.
You either couldn’t look past a couple of spelling errors or deliberately chose not to. My evidence? You commented on it and now we are talking about them. What was the point of mentioning it all if you were willing and able to ignore them.
You are a bad actor and you have shown what worth you are.
Go away.
Im done with you.
You have shown who you are and you arent just arent worth another thought
You’re more of a bad actor with your tantrums and rage-downvoting.
I wish you a better future.
EDIT: also to add that I simply made a note of it, specifically in a spoiler, while you were the one to try to make it into a conversation and talk about it. It really shows more about you than about me.
I don’t see why a free market can’t take care of this problem. Let the suppliers run their ads and if it’s not profitable then let them fold. None of this “please stop using ad blockers our business model sucks and we need you to accept worse overall service so we can stay in business”.
I don’t really care that much either.
This is the most important thing imo. Some people just don’t care (not saying it’s a bad thing). Others do so to each their own.
Sure, let everything require that you pay upfront for everything. Those too poor to afford to pay don’t deserve to have access to it anyway, right?
I’m not saying that ads are good, but having an option for people to pay to access a service that isn’t directly tied to money they have accessible seems better than barring them from that access. At the same time that option cannot be too intrusive or otherwise be too much of a negative before it becomes predatory. We can wish for the world to be perfect as much as we want, that doesn’t make it so. We can work towards a future where people don’t have to work to be able to live comfortably and where we have very different ways to compensate people for their time and effort on top of that. But we’re not there.
I’m not quite sure what you meant by your last paragraph, though.
Those too poor to afford to pay don’t deserve to have access to it anyway, right?
Those too poor to afford to pay get it for free, comrade.
I feel like a lot of people are wholly unaware of FOSS. But anyway my free market idea would require consent, for example a pop-up that says “would you like to pay $0.30 or watch an 8 second ad to view the content?” and then people could make their choice. If their choice is neither then they will go somewhere else for the information or entertainment. Consent is absent from the current model, aside from using an ad blocker to signal your refusal.
There are tons of videos (educational and otherwise) on youtube that have never paid out to their creators, either because they were from the era before youtube enshittified or because the algorithm decided that the content creator has earned nothing. It reminds me of the old argument that “you shouldn’t pirate music because it’s not fair to the artist” but man you’ve got to see those record contracts, especially those made to black or otherwise underprivileged artists. Being fair to the artist was never an imperative, but this argument still persists with people who identify themselves with their jailers, or who actually don’t really care that much (not saying that in a bad way).
Humans by nature are creative and helpful. We will always make how-to videos, guides, music, stories, and art. We don’t need megacorps to facilitate this, it’s the megacorps that want in, and they’re going to have to come up with a better business model.
Well yeah, of course we’re consuming content without paying. But that is not piracy.
The creators are distributing the content freely, and we’re consuming it, while ignoring the ads, because we have the ability to do it.
Is flipping the channel on legacy TV when switching to commercials piracy as well?
Anyone who considers adblocking immoral shouldn’t block anykind of advertising anywhere.
Where did you get that it was immoral from? I don’t see many (anyone?) that have claimed that.
If someone claims adblocking is form of piracy they are also claiming its immoral or bad thing to do. I doubt someone making claim like that would have anything nice to say about piracy.
I mean, why else would people speak against adblocking if they didnt think it was somehow “immoral” or otherwise negative thing to do.
No. Making a claim that adblocking is a form of piracy does not in any way say that either piracy nor adblocking is immoral. Only if they actually make a claim that piracy is immoral can it be transferred like that.
You also seem to make the claim that anyone equating adblocking and piracy are speaking against them. Why are you making such a claim?
Also *it’s, *didn’t. It’s not that hard.
I’m just so tired and annoyed about people wanting to restrict adblocking in anyway, so I guess i assume things too easily. I consider being able to not see ads my inherent right.
Oh, absolutely. And it’s just gotten worse with the intrusiveness and amount of ads everywhere. Piracy also seems to become the only way to avoid far too much data collection about us as well.
With some games you need to pirate them if you don’t want a Russian nesting doll of launchers and accounts
I’m not a gamer but is this really true? I thought it was the other way around, that pirated games were the ones filled with malware.
Absolutely. Sure pirated games run that risk but communities are big enough to usually snuff it out quickly if it’s a malware filled crack. Going through legitimate means a PC gamer is likely to have steam, epic games launcher, blizzard launcher, EA, Ubisoft, and probably more I can’t think of. Many of these are clunky and slow and demand online connectivity or multiple sign in auths every time you just want to play a damn single player, offline game
Sure pirated games run that risk but communities are big enough to usually snuff it out quickly if it’s a malware filled crack.
Big time. Even rumours of a repackers adding malware blow up on communities like this.
Core characters in the repack community also occasionally ask for and receive donations. I’ve donated to DODI, FitGirl, and Gnarly. Hopefully they receive enough to discourage them from anything malicious but they’re also adored and respected by the community.
Going through legitimate means a PC gamer is likely to have steam, epic games launcher, blizzard launcher, EA, Ubisoft, and probably more I can’t think of. Many of these are clunky and slow and demand online connectivity or multiple sign in auths every time you just want to play a damn single player, offline game
I purchased a Call of Duty title recently and that was a big thing. The amount of ads in the launcher was wild.
I didn’t even think of the ads when writing that, but damn that’s probably the worst part of it all! Thank you for adding that major detail, clearly my very minimal usage of most of those launchers was showing lol
Ooooh I see what you mean, thanks.
communities are big enough to usually snuff it out
That’s awesome, power to the people!
I do find the argument interesting some YouTubers try to make about ad blockers being a form of piracy.
This argument makes no sense to me, it would be piracy if I was copying the videos into my own channel and raking in the views. An YouTube channel is more like TV, you’re broadcasting into the wild hoping to get some eyeballs and selling those eyeballs to the highest bidder. It’s up to me if I want to see the ads or not, just like TV.
Ad blocking being likened to piracy would be valid except for the fact that internet ads have always been predominantly intrusive, misleading, predatory, and malicious.
No no it isn’t piracy. Shame on you
for giving them that power to wield they will use it to claim that putting tape on your camera so you cant be spied on is piracy. And thats rediculous, but thats what will happen if we dont stand together and say no no its not piracy just because i didnt want to watch your stupid fucking add on a video that YOU ARENT MONITIZING DIRECTLY. ads that arent payed to the content creator directly is wage theft at best and exploitation at worst
Edit sorry this isnt aimed at you personally beyond the first 8 words. Im not drunk but it does feel a bit like a drunken ramble, guess it touched a nerve. Ill have to reflect on that
Is piracy not inclusive of subverting the means for a producer to profit off of a product when using that product?
The issue I see in it is that businesses have made the assumption that internet adverts are the same as television adverts. They started using them as such and now they are having a hissy fit that they don’t have a captive audience.
If they find a way to force adverts on us, then we will be a captive audience once more.
Is piracy not inclusive of subverting the means for a producer to profit off of a product when using that product?
Not really. Most people who “pirate” games or media wouldn’t have paid for them anyway.
As Gabe Newell said (and demonstrated with Steam), “piracy” is a service problem.
Give people an affordable and more convenient way of accessing said games or media (Steam, Spotify before it got enshittified, Netflix before it got enshittified and the market got fragmented beyond any reasonable usability), and we’ll happily stop “pirating”.
If anything, “piracy” increases profits. Neil Gaiman compared it to word of mouth, or sharing your copy of a book with a friend: people in markets his books had trouble reaching (again, a service problem) “pirated” his books, liked them, and shared them with others… increasing his sales in said markets (people liked his work enough to try to find the books and buy them, and many who would have never heard of him became paying fans).
“Piracy” is free marketing (of course, this doesn’t work if your product isn’t worth its price, but bad products not earning money is a good way to improve overall quality), not theft. And without all the inconveniences of paid marketing. And often it’s a symptom that the way you’re selling your content is too inconvenient or overpriced for at least a fraction of your potential consumers, and thus needs to be fixed or improved (either voluntarily or through regulation).
You haven’t disputed my description in any way.
In fact, it seems like you agree but you’re just spending a lot of effort defending the act of piracy.
You’re saying “piracy” subverts the means for a producer to profit off their product.
I’m saying the exact opposite: that it not only doesn’t do that, but in fact almost certainly increases said profits (and linking references to support said position).
And I’m absolutely not defending “piracy”. It shouldn’t exist, as its existence is a symptom of serious issues within the market. And getting rid of it is simple: just provide an affordable and more convenient alternative. Valve did it. Netflix and Spotify did it, for a while.
But, if said alternative doesn’t exist, “piracy” will happen, and it happening, while definitely a worse situation than said convenient and affordable option existing, will be more beneficial to both society and content producers than the absence of both.
You are suggesting that piracy eventually leads to profit. That’s not a definition of piracy.
I am saying piracy is obtaining a digital product in an unauthorised manner to avoid paying for the product.
I am ambivalent to piracy. I think it’s a common factor and it is up to content producers to combat it. I am familiar with the studies you’ve linked, but that’s not the topic I’m discussing.
It’s gotten to such an extreme that some websites are nothing more than ad delivery mechanisms under the concept that “ads allow us to provide you quality content for free”, which, under the hood, is just a shitty business model that doesn’t work for consumers. I’ve seen websites that literally copy paste the content 2 or 3 times to extend the word count and have nonsensicle, out of order sentences that don’t contain any information. There are also websites that have incorrect information, which are also published with the sole purpose of serving ads to generate revenue, which imo is worse. Just another way that capitalism is making our world more shitty.
This has been the way for decades now.
What should be happening is people avoid the culprits and/or use an ad blocker. I do believe this is actually what’s happening, which is why content platforms like YouTube are looking for ways to control their audience.
Ad blockers aren’t illegal, but neither is a website blocking ad blockers. It’s an arms race that the content platforms will lose. So I wonder what will be the next step if the ad space depreciates too much to drive the content.
I think of adblockers as a filter.
Websites can choose to include ads, and I choose to filter them out with ad blockers.
Its no different than me placing a sticky note over every ad on my screen, or turning away and covering my ears when a video ad plays. But ad blockers automate that process and make it a whole lot easier. Simple quality of life
“If you want basic privacy protection, you are a pirate and I hate you.” - Linus Sebastian, professional L generator (abridged)
Not at all what he said, great “quote”
Did you lose your ability to recognise sarcasm, or did it never develop in the first place?
Of course that’s not what he said, but the issue of web ads is much deeper than the ad revenue or no ad revenue question he is taking a stand on. It has been discussed ad nauseum by more technically minded people than him.
“I am a big dumb dumb idiot” - [email protected]
Don’t worry it’s not an attack on you or a lie about what you said, just sarcasm.
That guy is a fucking loser
Can someone give me a source to what he’s referring to?
It is not strange. They are greedy. Period. If ever someone is less greedy, then even if only after they die the corp becomes as greedy as possible, ASAP - e.g. Disney.
What’s weird is that we are also hard-wired to be generous, so piracy does weird things to our conscience. If that bothers you, my advice is to learn to tip well irl, and in CASH whenever possible - the WORKERS deserve your aid.
Fuck tipping. American tipping culture enables employers to get away with paying their hospitality service industry employees starvation wages. By giving a big tip you are just telling the employer “Don’t worry about paying your employees a living wage. I got you fam.”
Obviously I still tip depending on where I am, but the minimum amount that is considered socially acceptable.
The ethics are complex for sure… a bit like sailing the high seas:-). I have no right to tell you or anyone else what to do, I just shared my own thought. Fuck the SOBs that started this for sure…but the WORKERS are the ones getting pinched in the middle of that clash of wills:-(.
Also I know of no better way to be generous to my fellow human - unlike some “charities”, this is no hand-out b/c there at least you can be 100% certain that they work. Also, a LOT of people do not tip (or if they do, then not much), thus necessitating a more extreme tipping from those that do if the scales were to ever to be balanced (which they ultimately never will, but still a little bit can help).
This is really a trolly problem through and through: someone puts a human on the tracks (lets say mostly innocent - possibly they were goaded rather than forced into being there but for the sake of argument let us presume they have no malice or any ill intent whatsoever, like this is no scam that they are “in” on, again just for the sake of argument), and a tiny but noticeable pile of your cash on the other, then offers to allow you to pull the lever to switch the track. Fuck the evil POS who would do that for their own amusement ofc but… given that it happened, do you play along and sacrifice your cash to help the human, or allow them to get hit? Let us also presume that you have the “right” to your cash, i.e. you would get it back rather than it being impounded for evidence or whatever.
I choose to play along, knowing full well that the system is unjust. Maybe I am contributing to the problem, but I do not know what else to do that could help in even the tiniest manner. Passing laws to enforce payment of a minimum wage that is actually a livable one seems like an entirely separate matter to me btw - b/c whether you tip or not, or whether you want to tip or not (I saw that you do the former but neither of us really do the latter, though I come closer to that in one manner of speaking), without being forced to, greedy-AF people will never (it seems) voluntarily pay the workers more on their own initiative, so simply “not tipping” in protest seems to me to be an approach doomed to failure. I do not deny that you are correct though - they will certainly take my doing so as their cue that they can continue, not that it would matter if laws were passed to literally prevent that happening - it is just that I cannot control them, I can only control me.
Thank you for this respectful conversation btw:-).
Honestly I think you should re-examine your perspective on charities. Just because they have some amount of administrative overhead doesn’t mean that they are always worse than simply giving money to a random person. That administrative overhead probably helps them operate at a scale that allows them to help far more people than a smaller organization could.
Like, if I give money to a local food bank, that would feed far more needy people than if I went to my local restaurant and bought a bunch of take-out and then went down to a homeless camp and gave random people the take-out. Because food banks have supply chain connections and economies of scale that allow them to buy a lot more food for every dollar than you can get at a restaurant.
True, if you had researched the charity in advance and knew that, or at least trusted the intermediary who told you about it to have done that due diligence. I said “some” and I put the word charities in double quotes b/c not everything that passes itself off as a charity is worthwhile… though that ofc does not mean that the converse is true and that none of them are. I remember when a charity - I think it was the Salvation Army? - collected an enormous amount of funds for Puerto Rico after it was hit with an extremely bad storm, and it made a big fuss about all the houses it was going to build there, but even a year (or maybe it was multiple years?) later it had barely made any (something like 10 houses total, or some ridiculously low amount compared to what they had claimed they were going to do). There are so many stories like this. Another one I have previously donated to are CareNet pregnancy centers - they offer potential mothers neonatal health screenings and such, free of charge, plus diapers and what-not, sometimes even cribs when they have them… thereby being (I thought) authentically “Pro-Life” rather than merely “Anti-Abortion” by offering these people real options to work with, not just heaping heavy burdens on others without lifting a finger to help, b/c these people provide that finger, even if it is not a full-on hand up. Although more recently they have been caught lying to the mothers, telling them about horrific health consequences of having abortions that are simply not medically factual, thereby being more “Anti-Abortion” after all.
So, not all charities are honest. Many are outright scams. Some politicians even set them up as a way to attempt to avoid taxes, while giving themselves perks like Donald Trump used people’s donations to commission a painting made of himself, claiming that by doing so he was “supporting the arts”. Technically that was even true, as the funds did end up going to an artist. And yet supporting millionaires like Trump to have yet another portrait - of himself no less! - does not necessarily align with my own idea of what a “charity” is, or at least I mean one that I should send my own funds to. Though I have heard of fantastic ones that I would consider giving to even now. So I am not anti-charity, b/c some true charities I am for (and some I am not), I was just saying that sometimes it is so hard to distinguish fact from fiction.
And even if the charity itself is honest, often the people attempting to take from it are less so. So the efficacy of their own screening process comes into question too - yes a food bank can feed people, but how many of those were truly in need? Tbh, mostly I am setting that thought up as a caricature rather than realistic argument, as a bolster for my next point that does manage to stand all on its own, yet is strengthened by this thought experiment:-).
Workers at least you can see with your own two eyes that they are working, plus you consumed the food/drink product even if it was made out of sight in the kitchen. Oftentimes in the past, these are the people who are attempting to work their way through or up to college and may need the most help going through that process. In the last several years that might no longer be true, though it still leaves open the thought that these are the people who struggle the most, and could use a bit of “trickle down”. These aren’t people who have just given up and looking for others to take care of them, they will accept the wage they are given, but they HOPE for more? At the very least, I identify with that struggle. The owners may be a different matter entirely, but the workers… at the very least they are not evil corps like Disney.
But also, how is what you said any different? Aren’t charities doing the same thing for the needy as tipping does for workers? Governments do not take care of people, so giving to charities is like telling the government “Don’t worry about making sure that your citizens get paid a living wage. I got you fam.” Socialism has its downsides, but people don’t seem to realize that capitalism does too - i.e. the end stage of a purely capitalistic society is slavery for the masses along with a few at the top who own everything. The reason the USA did not devolve to that stage is b/c of HEAVY checks & balances in the system, e.g. detection & punishment of fraud & other similar events such as product safety - whereas in a purely capitalistic society, that is a “shared resource” hence disallowed, so every consumer would need to test every product by themselves?!? Police, firefighters, teachers, heck even roads are all “shared” hence socialism (government controls the means and production of e.g. roads), or at least capitalism & socialism existed side-by-side (e.g. both socialistic shared resources alongside capitalistic private ones - police/bodyguards, schools, roads, and so much more), but we were more socialist in the past whereas today the spectrum has shifted more towards the capitalist end of the continuum. Hence fewer protections in place - e.g. there is still a minimum wage, but that wage has not been kept updated to what is livable for decades now. So the whole idea of charity then is to circumvent the need for socialism to exist in the USA in order to balance things out, and instead to use the capitalist approach by allowing your money to become your speech and say “I want these people to be helped in this manner”. Exactly like tipping?
There is so much more to add but no time or space. One thing I’ll say briefly is that enlightened self-interest also seems like it falls on the side of tipping? People when they do not get enough may steal, so offering them a way to earn enough helps prevent that - or if not fully “earn” (like $3 tip on a <$5 meal) then at least you would incentivize good behavior? As opposed to a safety net that helps people regardless of how they act, which I am not saying that is you but some people feel that that is improper, hence the reasoning behind some of my phrasing - e.g. “there at least you can be 100% certain that they work”.
Perhaps you knew all this already and it is only I just catching up. In any case this discussion is fun:-).
By giving a big tip you are just telling the employer “Don’t worry about paying your employees a living wage. I got you fam.”
And what’s the alternative? Giving them nothing and telling yourself that it’s on them?
Yeah no thanks. I hate tipping culture as much as the next guy, but this isn’t how you change that.
I literally stated my preferred approach in the last sentence of that comment.
Oh right so you’re a piece of shit. Got it.
Maybe if you spent one day working food service, or any other job that makes $3/hour plus tips, you’d get it.
Maybe you shouldn’t take a job that pays $3/hour and then blame other people for why you get paid so little. My brother in Christ, you accepted the job.
“Maybe people should get jobs that pay more”
Yo holy shit, I can’t believe nobody ever thought of that! Wow, thanks!
What’s more crazy is that the very ISPs that track all of our information and sell to the highest better are the same ones sending us letters and emails when we use torrents that they’ll shut off our services if we continue to pirate movies and music.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Removed by mod
You see, the paperclip maximizer is real. Only, it isn’t paperclips. We are being compressed into currency.
I remember the Internet in the early to late 90s. What a magical time it was. I’ve said for years now that giant corporations are going to basically buy out the Internet and pidgin hole you into using their services. They’ve basically accomplished that goal.
This is why we need a p2p mesh internet.
Everyone: “But Explodicle, the bandwidth will be terrible!”
Meh, all we really need is basic communication infrastructure that isn’t hostile. Everything else I can wait to download… like the 90s.
Yggdrasil to your service
Sacred tree of life from Norse mythology? What?
Thanks
deleted by creator
Corpos are greedy for money and will attack anything that stands between them and it. That is until the Govt steps in, then the lobbiests fend it off with handfulls of money.
This is almost verbatim the definition of a dystopia, fwiw.
eta: the start of it is nearly a Black Mirror episode
How do you get “good” private trackers man. Either they’re all empty or just seem impossible to get into
Open signups happen frequently but you have to be quick to catch them
Opentrackers.org and r/opensignups (or r/trackersignups) are good to check once in a while
MyAnonaMouse has open applications twice a week and the test is very easy
maaan, I have to go to reddit for that? Ewww
Depends on which tracker. In general though invites and you get invites by association with relevant groups. Sometimes open registration occurs (though rarely) an other times the trakcer may do interviews.
It mostly comes down to time and patience.
I got a pretty letter from speck_t_rum once.
Been a paranoid ever since.
Should’ve had a VPN up!
I don’t see how thats relevant.
VPN will encrypt your traffic so your ISP can’t spy on you. That’s the whole point of a VPN.
But I wasn’t even talking about vpns. Just private trackers and how to get into them.
It said stop torrenting or face a biiiig fine. I’ll try and follow the guides to avoid this but I’m still a bit paranoid. Maybe I was loooking for reassurance that vpn and private trackers are good enough.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I believe the only thing they could really do is drop you from their service (or I guess throttle you to high heaven)… I don’t think a private company has the authority to impose fines, and I don’t think these companies are actually following-up on these letters with real lawsuits as it would cost them way too much money.
actually either or is good normally. Public tracker +VPN or private without.
I wouldn’t go without a VPN either way. Not a lot is really stopping copyright trolls from getting on some of the private trackers.
I torrented stuff on spectrum for years through a VPN without issue. Just make sure your torrent client is bound to the VPN network adapter only to prevent leaks.
By not torrenting. Use Usenet instead. Way safer and easier. Once I went Usenet I literally haven’t touched a single torrent in over a decade.
Here we gooooo
Into the rabbit hole that is, idk what Usenet is
Newsgroups.
Basically (Its all afaik) bulletin boards and meant for groups juat chatting like we do here on reddit/lemmy.
But they also host binaries that (when put together) equal a movie file. Kinda like a multi-rar file.
Thwy usually have deals around black friday.
I’ll be the first to preach Usenet for movies and shows, but I’m wondering if you’ve found it useful for gaming/ music.
I haven’t tried it for gaming or music. Like always, piracy is a service problem. Spotify and Steam have solved the service problem so I pay for those. Haven’t felt like pirating in a game in 14 years due to it, and spotify literally has every song I could ever want to listen to on the planet.
Unless I’ve misunderstood how it works, don’t you need to pay for Usenet?
Something about paying money for pirated content rubs me the wrong way.
Yes, you’re essentially paying for download capacity. But I never have to worry about viruses or my ISP saying anything. And downloads are instant.
Search the term “OpenSignups”
They less elite one open usually during holidays like Easter Christmast, Black Friday and summer break.
Set up a private dns too, just in case of an ambush.
Gotcha, thanks
to the point of being denied service
Yes. Spotify blocks my account if I’m using VPN, ChatGPT asks to solve ridiculous captchas (on a paid account!). It’s crazy. Reddit blocks access if you’re on the VPN and not logged in.
Spotify works perfectly fine for me on Mullvad VPN
Capitalism.
You know what would be pretty baller? A VPN credit union kind of thing where people ask over the place have their IP substituted with anyone else’s in the network! Just join in with a certain minimum of bandwidth?
I’m not sure I would want my ip address being tied to the activity of a large amount of strangers who want to hide their IP address. Seems like a good way to get a visit from the friendly neighborhood black van.
I’m pretty sure you’d have a perfectly good explanation.
I think it’d be more valuable if ISPs linked together and let you cycle through different routes for different exit nodes.
Herd immunity?
I kinda wonder if this is what TOR does.
Yeah I’m not super technical but that was my first thought
That’s kinda TOR I guess
