True, I remember the government trying to sell off Channel 4. Anyway I guess my point was that ads don't necessarily ruin a platform if the platform has a decent purpose other than just profit... although I definitely do hate seeing any ads, even on Channel 4 or anything else.

We all thought Bill Gates was a megalomaniac, but clearly we didn't know shit

Interesting, maybe the content has changed, I probably don't watch enough TV to have noticed. But I think Channel 4 news is pretty good, and I liked their Paralympics coverage.

But then you could look at Channel 4, which does show ads to UK people, but I think Channel 4 is still okay and I don't think it has been ruined by ads. So maybe a profit motive is what causes enshittification, rather than just ads. I definitely hate ads but maybe ads alone don't destroy platforms.

True, they don't show commercial adverts in the UK, but they do to other countries. People outside the UK can access the BBC website but they'll see adverts on there, and apparently BBC America (shown in the US) has commercial adverts

And Channel 4 of course does show commercial adverts in the UK, but I think they still make some decent content, and I don't think they're on the verge of self-destruction

Maybe the real problem is when an entity is chasing profits, because Channel 4 isn't a normal for-profit business, since they're owned by the government, and I think they have to abide by some rules

I don't think that's necessarily true - maybe it depends on (a) the owners of the platform and/or (b) whether there are sources of funding besides advertising

E.g. here in the UK, the BBC and Channel 4 are both broadcasters owned by the government, and both are funded at least in part by adverts. But I think both of them are relatively healthy and aren't on the brink of destroying themselves.

I think most of the BBC's funding comes from the licence fee (British people pay for a TV licence) but they make some money from ads shown to international audiences. Channel 4 is solely funded by adverts I think, but it's owned by the government and I think they have to abide by certain rules and targets.

Same I think. Here in the UK the main two TV news channels (BBC and Sky) have extensively reported on deaths and suffering in Gaza, and now they are reporting on the situation in Lebanon

Of course there are also right-wing papers (Telegraph, Express) who give the impression that Israel is always good and everybody else is always bad, but they're just one segment of the overall media

People can release photos/videos all they want, but there are many people who suffer from cancer across the UK, yet we're told to care more about the royal family because they're rich and powerful

The Steam Deck seems like a decent console, if that counts, because you're free to do what you want with it

But perhaps you consider that to just be a handheld PC instead of a console, which I suppose is true

If someone has bought a Switch game legally, then it's legal to dump that game to a PC and play it on a Switch emulator, right?

Sure you could say that very few people dump their own games, but those that do are doing everything legally I think?

We all know that social media can encourage extremism in some people, but it's surprising when it happens to the richest guy in the world

The funny part was when he said he was a free speech absolutist, but then he started restricting the free speech of people he doesn't like

More anti-consumer stuff from corporate bigwigs

I just use Google with uBlock Origin to get rid of adverts

I don't think The Sun is trying to convince people to vote Labour, I think they just don't want to be on the losing side, so that's why they're not backing Rishi.

They even say in their piece that they support many of Rishi's policies. Then they reluctantly say "it is time for Labour", which sounds to me like a bitter acceptance that Labour will likely win, rather than them encouraging people to vote for Labour.

Hypotheticals can be interesting but I think they're more interesting when you think about how they would actually work in reality.

Like if someone says "would you give up alcohol forever for £1 million". Surely the interesting part of that question is thinking about how it would work in reality. For example would you be allowed to take the £1 million, invest it, end up with several million, then pay back the original £1 million so you can drink alcohol again?

There's a solution to this problem. Stop using Windows and instead use Linux, or even MacOS.

The thing is that you can't guarantee safety. Things can always go wrong. Perhaps that's why people are cautious about it.

I guess it's personal to different people. Some people don't care about sex and that's fine. Some people want sex, and as long as they do it in an ethical way (e.g. not sexually abusing anybody), that's fine too.

If sex does matter to someone then they might not want to lose that part of themselves. Just like, if you have a certain hobby, you might think "I hope I maintain my interest in this hobby, because it's a key part of who I am".

Sex is important to most organisms. I don't think people want sex just because it's a norm in society. I think they want it due to an instinctive desire. Just like people want to eat food and breathe air.