Big Tech doesn’t run social media. It runs algorithmic advertising platforms.

The majority of people using algorithmic advertising platforms are not content creators, they’re consumers (if you’re reading this, you’re probably not in the majority). They have no interest is active participation in “social media”. They’re in it for the entertainment, the distraction, the memes, the algorithm telling them what they should care about. You can’t remove this feature and expect these users to find content for themselves.

You can argue the pros and cons all you want, your reasoning may be factual and altruistic, but you will not get a substantial portion of content consumers to migrate to platforms that require more effort. They know what they’re signing up for. They have no interest in “reclaiming social media”.

Bluesky and Mastodon are fantastic platforms that, in my opinion, revive some of the core tenants of social microblogging. But this is like comparing a bulletin board system (BBS) to the Yahoo! homepage. Some people want to be involved, some people want to be told.

One of these platforms offers a greater profit making opportunity than the other. If one allows people to make money and another does not, what’s the motivation for the most influential of creators to embrace the latter? And then what’s the motivation of the consumers to embrace a platform that lacks the most influential creators? (Again, if you’re reading this, you likely aren’t a member of the majority.)

Violence is stupid. In some situations, it’s just an output for one’s rage. In other situations, it’s a battle of who is best equipped (hardware + intelligence). Neither of these address the core of the disagreement. Violence only beats the loser into submission. It does not change their stance on the matter.

Negotiation, on the other hand, ideally, at least gives all parties some gains and losses. It may not be the end of the matter but it’s generally a positive step and should promote some degree of respect.

Maybe we never had it, but I think we’ve largely lost the ability to be respectful and empathetic to others. Even though we find to be of the greatest evil, I think, should be given some initial respect to try to understand the emotional reality of their intent.

I won’t write it out, but imagine the worse crime an adult male could do to someone. Something so revolting that the only “logical” recourse is violence. This is an emotional response that does not address the problems that brought this person to such an evil act. By ignoring the problem and beating the person down, we are not able to understand how they got to this place or how we can recognize this path in others. This is a brief example for the sake of time. If you look at something like genocide, I think the process does scale up but too complex to write out for now.

I condone empathy for all because we all as a species benefit from it.

Edit: on second thought - violence used to preserve life may generally be acceptable.

This is not Microsoft. I haven’t updated my plex software in over six months and it runs fine. Still, yes, I would expect updates to any software I purchase as new patches are needed for OS updates, etc. That shouldn’t be more than two updates a year for a given OS - if at all.

Selling a product, generating revenue, using revenue to improve products or create new products is how we used to run businesses.

If they’re unable to maintain software updates with the revenue they get, then they should discontinue support of less popular products.

As I’ve stated on the plex forum, plex is no longer a media management and consumption platform. It’s a video on demand service. That’s their prerogative and that’s fine. The issue is that they’re discontinuing a product that people have purchased and use on a regular basis. I paid money for a product and that product can no longer be used if I change the device I use that product on. They should have left the existing product alone and released something wholly new.

I bought a media management and consumption platform running on my own server using my own clients. For what reason do I need a relay service to watch content in my house on my server?

So what is the move for them?

Plex has a two-pronged VOD service. They have ad-supported “live television” and they have content to rent.

I don’t know if that’s enough to sustain them but I don’t really care. I’ve been a PlexPass owner for over ten years. I have only asked that they resolve bugs and made requests for things like proper organization of classical music (which they’ve explicitly stated they will not consider).

You do bring to light something I hadn’t considered; that they see Plex as a business model. From my perspective, I want to buy a fully developed product with the expectation of bug fixes and security patches etc over time. I genuinely can not think of a single thing the developers have added to the service that I’ve used in the past ten years.

So, what kind of business model charges money to do things that don’t have an apparent impact on the user experience?

Plex has been one of my most used applications in the past decade. However, it has its limitations and they are actively imposing more limitations on the experience in favor of “a sustainable business model”.

The issue is that their sustainable business model is interrupting the users’ sustained use of a platform they’ve already paid for. I’ve had to go through all of my devices and disable all auto-updates to ensure I do not get the “New Plex Experience”.

What we should be asking is why “selling a product” is no longer a business model.

Rich people don’t care about their privacy as much as they have their own IT department to do the work for them (source: I’ve been their IT department).

Their devices are just as secure as you would imagine any high profile CEO. Their home networks can cost up to $100k and are super secure with constant monitoring. They all have “normal” devices but they’ll usually have a VPN tunnel.

But, stuff like their Facebook logins, etc they’re still pretty bad with passwords, from my experience. I’d say less than percent of the people I’ve worked with have asked serious questions about their cyber security.

For what would they hold the administration in contempt and what does this do to block, stop, or reverse illegal actions?

It seems like you’re lacking a basic understanding of how law and government work and it doesn’t seem like you know what contempt means. And, to make up for that, you throw out witless insults in an attempt to derail the conversation.

You, “the internet”, are far too emotional to consider the reality of these situations. Just because something makes you angry or someone does something you think should be illegal does not mean someone is not permitted to do that action.

There are absolutely actions that Trump has done that are illegal and many of those actions have been decided on while other cases are in court now. “The Democrats”, I presume we’re addressing Congress, are not explicitly the group responsible for holding the administration accountable for everything he does. Congress only has authority over a handful of things (mostly, but not limited to, money) with few options to do anything about them.

The point I am trying to make is; (1) what actions does OP suggest are illegal, (2) a court has to determined that action to be illegal, (3) Congress is not responsible for suing the president nor responsible for determining what is legal nor responsibly for jailing an executive officer, (4) this Republican Congress is not going to pass legislation (the main power they have) to block, stop, or reverse actions taken by this administration. And, finally, what the Trump administration is doing, legal or not, is largely what the United States voters voted for. So, the best way to stop these quote unquote illegal actions is to vote for Democrats in two years.

Gotcha. So you either you don’t know or you do know this is not true.

Congress has no power to jail officials. They can hold an official in contempt and potentially have the US Attorney’s office put them in jail. That’s not happening with Trump. That’s not happening with anyone in Trump’s administration.

They can… sue in court (like Dems did to block Trump’s border wall funding)

Yes. That’s exactly my entire point. And this only works if the courts determine the act to not be legal. This is why, as I said, there are over 250 cases against the administration right now.

There’s a lot going on right now which the public dislikes but that doesn’t necessarily make an act illegal. If nothing else, Trump knows how to work the courts. He also disregards the courts and we’re still waiting to see if there’s any repercussions to that.

Trump is not Obama. Obama fucked up by caving to McConnell. Trump would not do the same. There is no comparison of this administration and any other. History is irrelevant at this point.

Yes. Tell me how congress jails officials.

Dems could’ve jailed officials for contempt

How does that work?

Really? Tell me how a political party can police another party. The only actions congress, in particular, have is impeachment. Impeachment is effectively suing the defendant with no inherit repercussions.

Give me one example of an illegal action taken by this administration and what the Democrats could legally do to “block, stop, or reverse” it.

This bill is about denouncing the antisemitic attack in Boulder with a single line at the literal bottom reading,

expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.

I won’t stop you from holding politicians accountable for every line of every bill they vote for but you’re distorting reality to fit your narrative. There is nothing wrong with supporting this bill and I question why anyone would reject it.

Are you lost?

It’s not the responsibility of a political party to police the actions of an administration. If someone does something you believe to be illegal, you sue them. According to a LLM search, the administration has over 250 cases against them right now. The courts are the ones responsible for judging the actions of the administration and holding it accountable.

Trump was elected to do the things he’s doing. There’s no surprises here. Congress is stacked against the Democrats. There really isn’t anything they can legally do until they regain either the Senate or the House.

The concern should be the legal actions he’s taking; the ones the supreme court ultimately determine are fine. The few that pass that bar are going to be major hurdles to restoring normalcy.

What the Democrats should be doing is forming a unified party that listens to the concerns of the people and finding someone to voice this movement.

It really comes down to the people. We always have the choice of who to elect. We seem to be voting for people who are against our own personal interests because our electoral system is a farce. Politicians are lying so often and so blatantly now that, regardless of your affiliation, the truth is often clouded by bias and emotion, if not intentionally buried. About half of Americans now believe our elections are rigged even though the evidence indicates they’re highly secure.

I mean, if you’re here asking what can be done to fix this shit we’re in right now, the answer is to reform our elections, make them tax payer funded, embrace STAR or Ranked Choice Voting, and pass the bill that prevents elected leaders from holding stocks. Or, I don’t know how you do this but getting people to know the difference between factual unbiased news and fake news and preventing biased opinions from distorting their realities.

When it’s trash day on my block (city life) and the collectors leave a trash can in an open parking spot and I move that can to the sidewalk, you’re claiming that I’m doing this because it makes me feel good to be helpful to someone I’ll never encounter, and that this isn’t “true altruism”.

So, should we be discussing why we don’t do things that make us feel bad? “True altruism” can’t exist because we don’t go around helping people commit murders or because we’re not voting for a politician we dislike? I don’t think that’s the intent of the word.

I mean, there’s ‘doing things because they make you “feel good”’ and there’s altruism. These are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive.

I think perhaps the word you’re trying to shoehorn into altruism is heroism - when you do something for the benefit of others knowing it’s detrimental to yourself. Or, if you really want to dig into doing things that make you feel bad, I’m not really sure what word that would be. Idiocracy?

I live in a building where these contactless and cashless washing / drying units are provided for residents to clean their clothes.

Thanks. Hadn’t thought that far ahead.

Above these

Another longtime user here. If you haven’t already, you might want to disable autoupdates on all your devices. The “new experience” is not without its controversies.