I’m not exactly sure where, how or why people would join Threads, but if it’s going to be part of the fediverse I wouldn’t be all against it.

I probably wouldn’t join it, but I think it would be better for the Meta-users to be exposed to the internet outside of the environment controlled by Meta.

There’s a reason why everyone is angry on Facebook. Hint: It isn’t that everyone is angry. It’s because “engagement” is encouraged.

If they were exposed to a place where people could choose more freely to engage with anger, they’d be surprised with how little people actually respond to shit/rant postings. It’s perfectly fine to rant and shitpost, but the fediverse definitely shows that there is more to the internet than that. I won’t mind giving it a shot at showing them. (As long as I can block the entire thing at any time I want.)

I’d love to see it the Americans follow up once Tesla has unionised in Europe.

I’d also love to see what Tesla would’ve done without a stubborn idiot as CEO. Maybe it’s time for the shareholders to take another look at the supermajority voting that Musk is abusing to run the company down.

The payback happened through a fund, where victims could apply, I suppose.

The sentence was to pay back 17 billion and 150 years in prison, so it was inevitable that he’d die in prison. The losses were estimated to be 18 billion, so he got off one billion short in that regard.

However, he paid another heavy price. Both sons died before him. One of them off’ed himsel on the anniversary of his father’s arrest.

(To be honest, I just googled all of that. I’ve never heard any details on this case before because I live on the opposite side of the globe.)

It’s the same quote in all the stories on this. The key being “at some point”, meaning that he probably just noticed that the stock was running low one week and bought the remaining 8 to resell.

However if it really was an ongoing scheme, he could also have bought them from other prisoners and resold at a higher price than he offered them. Basically asking someone who doesn’t buy their own quota of chocolate to buy it for him. If chocolate cost 10$ and he’s offering 11$ to someone getting it for him they’ll gladly carry the entire stock to him, so that the people actually needing chocolate would have to buy it from him for 12$.

The prison could easily stop this by increasing the stock if they knew it was going on at all.

Anyway it’s not ongoing. He died some years ago.

Okay. I read he article and read (some of) the source, but I still have to ask: What is “News” in this context?

Leading me to think about what even “News” is, and in particular what is “News” to the people who answered this, and does that kind of opinion on “News” disqualify them from having an opinion on “News” in the general sense?

Well, that part is working really well. I’ve been using YouTube less and less every time they’ve worsened the free service. I don’t even bother with the revanced loopholes, I’ll just don’t use YouTube to find stuff. Most of the content is made for monetisation purposes anyway.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it, or that I don’t understand why. It’s just a prime example of the internet going to shit.

It’s a waste of time. People who bother installing Vanced are not likely to click a single god damn ad even if it’s forced on them.

So yes, Google can choose to bother some people and get higher statistics on ad views, but the companies paying for the ad will not see one single fucking sale more. This lowers the value of the ad.

They’re chasing imaginary revenue.

The value of exposure isn’t real either. The phone might play it but I don’t fucking watch something that I don’t want to watch. I’ve been online since before online ads were a thing and not once have I bought anything from any online ads.

Just let me opt out of that circus for fuck sake.