You're conflating commercial competency with personal likeability.
The difference between
Steam is provably the superior platform and that's why they are successful.
Vs
Steam is better because I like gaben.
Defending commercial competency is logically consistent.
Defending a billionaire personally is not.
Now go back and look at what was being defended.
People are people, manage your expectations accordingly.
These kinds of federated services were never meant to be better than reddit in a content sense, all they do is provide a system in which the possibility of a subjectively better platform was possible.
More simply, federated services are about federation/decentralisation.
The idiomatic solution to the problem you're describing is either to:
start your own federated instance, with the prerequisite amount of hookers and blackjack, but also sufficient rules and moderational enforcement to adhere to your expectations of what a better reddit looks like.
or
find an instance that already does this and join it.
This is a thing that is possible in a federated service, which is the actual difference between reddit and lemmy/piefed etc
Yeah, just like star trek
edit: /s , because evidently it wasn't clear
The DSM doesn't include that specific diagnosis any more right, it's all the ASPD and DPD spectrum now ?
They removed it because of the absolute shitshow that was trying to reliably diagnose psychopathy as it was originally described.(and possibly the negative connotations associated with the word itself)
So now they have a series of metrics to measure things they can somewhat reliably measure over time.
Like how the medical diagnosis of idiot doesn't exist anymore, but there are more accurate and nuanced terms and diagnosis for intellectual disabilities in various forms.
I could be wrong however, my understanding of this area of research is middling at best.
Crazy ape comment aside (i'd put it closer to apes with delusions of grandeur but that's just me), not shooting guns and allowing hunting aren't mutually exclusive.
Especially given all the hunting that happened pre-gun.
I don't know if it's on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).
I do not believe “what they define as NSFW will expand!”
And that's the core of your problem, puritan activists don't generally have the capacity to think "actually, the thing i wanted other people to not be able to see is gone, i think I'll leave it there" because the censorship isn't the goal, the goal is control.
It's even worse with organised puritans , because even if a few hang it up you'll always find a few willing to just go a little further or have differing opinions on what is "acceptable".
I would lay good money on this not actually being as far as they originally wanted, it was just what they could get for now.
I don’t understand why people are bitching that the companies that they choose to use have so much power over their purchasing decisions. “First this, next sex toys! Then contraceptives!” Like Jesus fuck bro have you not heard of cash?
Firstly, it's the payment processors, you know the monopoly of companies that you need to take payments from regular people.
Secondly, payment processors can and will stop providing payment services for shops that carry physical goods they deem unacceptable.
(yes crypto exists, no it's not equivalent yet) (yes steam cards exist, no it's not equivalent and unless i've missed something itch.io doesn't have an card system)
As far as cash goes, is there a new slot where you can put the cash monies directly in to the pc/console and it credits your account ?
Or do you mean, go to the store and buy a physical copy of the hundreds of thousands of games that don't have physical editions ?
Which law? in which place? at what time ?
Where it's hosted? where it's being accessed? the intermediate locations ?
Which license, is the license enforceable in this context? who decides if it is? what if there are conflicting decisions from different applications of law, who arbitrates?
Do you mean piracy in the maritime sense? or do you mean copyright infringement? perhaps trademark infringement? or intellectual property theft? based on which law in which geographic region ?
This isn't even hyperbole, the things you are talking about have nuance and context, pretending they don't is a failure of imagination or intentional trolling.
Are you saying the UK doesn't have ambulances?
That's a ridiculous and easily disprovable claim.
Also aren't the nonexistent uk ambulances free?
As in not charged at a rate of thousands of dollars, they'd still be tax funded I assume.
Taxonomy.
The nazi's did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.
So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.
I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category
As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s
Might turn out that they don't quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.
Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi's
Like :
Come back in a few years and you'll probably get your definitive answer either way.
You don't have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.
You don't need to suspect you can check for yourself, modlog exists.
I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
Let's try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.
"I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are."
A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.
If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn't be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
The whole point of having a women's competition is to separate "men" from "women", if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we'd be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop "women" from competing in "men's" competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.
Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase
"it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition."
This is not a good argument.
As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.
The mandate says nothing about cameras specifically.
I thought it did as well but it only specifies this :
Don't get me wrong, manufacturers are going to have a fucking field day with all of the shit they'll try and get in under this banner of "safety" and they will almost certainly work their monetisation shenanigans in around this.
It might seem like that wording prohibits data collection, but it doesn't cover all the bases a team of well paid lawyers would be able to come up with. Or they could just do what they normally do and just ignore the "no data collection" part and pay the ~~cost of doing business tax~~ fine and rake in multiples of that fine in profits.
My point is , it doesn't specify cameras, so theoretically a company could come up with a non-face-scanning way of doing this and use that instead.
will they ?....fuck no...but they could if they wanted to.
Which is arguably worse.
edit : A note to say that I'm not arguing against the safety aspects of this , they might be fully valid, i'm arguing that it'll be abused for profit in any way the companies think will give them a positive ROI.