ah, maybe I should clarify when I said looting wouldn’t have majority support, I was assuming a context where a populist movement (i.e. made up of the majority) was trying to find strategies to gain some economic independence such that they can afford a general strike- mutual aid might be a popular option (as well as how unions use their funds from dues to pay work on strike), but my point is only that looting is likely to be an unpopular option, and thus one that would harm the movement’s reputation and ability to remain supported by the majority on which it depends.

I did not mean that in absolute terms anything must justify its existence through majority support, as you pointed out that’s not how the world works.

yes, I agree entirely- but I’m not sure what further point you are making or how it is relevant

oligarchy is supported by the rich and powerful which is how it exists against the majority; I doubt you’re suggesting looting is a feasible option for the same reasons…

looting will not be supported by the majority

correct, see for example the reactions to the US’s decision to invade and seize territory from Mexico, which was largely seen as a betrayal of liberal values that the country was supposedly founded on. Don’t worry, the US isn’t the only country to justify their revolution with promises of liberal ideals like freedom and equality only to expose their true priorities later (namely giving local colonial elites more power than those ruling monarchs in Europe). I recommend reading the chapter on Bolivarian revolutions from the history book Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America for more about the disappointments and failures of liberal revolutions to live up to their promises.

the advertisers, they’re going to come for you at night?

we have ads because services paid for with attention are more accessible and get more traffic than services paid for with a monthly subscription … we could probably subsidize a lot of websites or make them community efforts (like Wikipedia), but because there is a desire to profit from websites, we have this aggressive push for ads and monetization in every corner of the web.

Commercialization, though, is the problem more than advertising itself is. Monetization through “native ads” or affiliate link marketing is just as insidious and toxic, and pervasive. Just like people hate loot boxes and games that have mechanics where skill is less important than paying cash for in-game content to gain an advantage, the root problem is commercialization.

This is just capitalism, and cyberpunk as a genre is meant to be critical of capitalism and its rotten fruits.

I think it misses the mark to interpret the war as a war between humanity and advertisers when it’s a war between the powerful and wealthy and the 99%.

I don’t tend to post news or politics, I think those posts are rather saturated on Lemmy.

It’s pretty ironic my most recent post is a political post, and here’s another political news article post I made … So to say I’ve “never made a single news or politics post” I think is factually wrong.

Either way, I was hoping to appeal to your conscience here.

I’m not sure I understand your moral argument - you say that there are moral problems with every news source, and if we held moral standards to the sources we used, no posts would be permitted on Lemmy, but … you know, there are better and worse places to drive traffic, better and worse places to use as a source. It’s not all or nothing, you have to know this right?

So, reading between the lines, what I’m hearing from you is that it’s not a deal-breaker for you to drive traffic to a website that perpetuates conspiracy theories and seeks to deny people like me healthcare, that these are morally tolerable positions.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot since reading this article on free speech about how often people will side with “free speech” until it’s a topic they don’t actually tolerate - e.g. very few “free speech” advocates continued to defend Milo Yiannopoulos after he started to advocate for pedophilia.

Here’s the salient point I think the article makes:

The truth of the matter is that there are two types of speech or expression: those that we (either as individuals, or as a society) are willing to tolerate, and those that we do not. (This is explained compellingly here.) You may cherish a particular word, idea, expression, or identity. But if enough people collectively refuse to tolerate it, well . . . you can shout “free speech!” at the top of your lungs all you want, but it isn’t going to protect you.

In the end, what I’m hearing is you are willing to tolerate a news source that peddles far-right conspiracy theories that aim to strip people of their rights and manipulate people into rejecting science, that these ultimately are tolerable views, ones you are willing to indirectly support by continuing to link to Newsweek and drive traffic there.

Maybe you would not feel the same about linking to a neo-Nazi website directly, or to a Holocaust denial website, or maybe a website that hosts child pornography or advocates for pedophilia - I assume these are views you probably wouldn’t tolerate and wouldn’t want to be associated with or support even indirectly.

It’s OK if my attempt to appeal to your conscience failed - I assumed from the start that we were more likely to be on the same page on this, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for wasting your time.

In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had “taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders” since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine’s elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer’s opinion section and podcast.

Newsweek in particular is vile and horrible, and you are driving traffic to them. The argument that there are other news sites with problems is whataboutism, it doesn’t address that this news source has a serious problem.

Besides, here’s an easy alternative and less problematic source: https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2025/03/25/florida-child-labor-bill-migrant-workers

(it’s not that hard)

newsweek is a conspiracy peddling right-wing rag, please stop driving traffic to them

hm, if it’s not too much to ask, maybe a visual would help? Like, an example where Excel or some other program shows correct layout, and LibreOffice has incorrect?

I haven’t had much discomfort with LibreOffice and I tend to be pretty OCD and I do UI work, so … maybe I’ve just ignored it - would like to learn, though!

he has been obsessed recently with explaining how “beautiful little girls” can just live with fewer dolls :-/

lemmy did not get Reddit’s best and brightest 😭

you dropped this: e

this is the way

I prefer Google Sheets to Excel, but I still use LibreOffice Calc for everything anyway

it doesn’t feel that different than Word and Excel, tbh - I don’t know what you’re talking about

are you a computer?

yes!! I’m a fan of 24-hour time, though we should honestly switch to metric time, I think we’re at least a second French revolution away from that happening 😅

What did Trump want / get out of it?