That’s not how polling works

I’ve tried this a bunch of times but I don’t really get it tbh.

What sorts of things do you search for?

Everything I need is in an organised structure.

I can see why you would think this, but this is a very unusual case. Particularly so given the decision in this article.

You’re dead right in that rich people don’t go broke like the rest of us - because they have accountants and lawyers set up complex business structures so if something falls over they can just walk away (or drive away in their nice car to their nice house).

This article is pretty much saying that all that usual dance isn’t going to work in this case - he still has to pay $1.1b.

Also, there’s no law that prevents him from going on making money. That may not feel “right” or just but that dynamic is the same even for poor people. That said, at 100k per month it would take him 916 years to pay $1.1b soo… he might curtail his luxurious lifestyle, maybe not.

Legendary.

Sorry I don’t really understand your position.

You’re rejecting the quotes from the article on the basis of the publication, suggesting a better accusation would be a “scam”, and then refuting that accusation as baseless.

I’m not trying to be an ass, I mean this as kindly as possible, but this is a straw man argument. You should look into logical fallacies. They’re well documented tactics for manipulating people and misrepresenting information. Everyone should. It will help you to reason about information and ultimately identify when you’re being manipulated.

If the app was banned due to it being a scam (which is not the case)

The term “scam” is a straw man. “Scam” is subjective, so you could define a scam as “an app that provides no content and steals your money” and conclude that the app in question is not that, and therefore fine.

The main assertion in the article is:

the app deliberately targets young men and encourages misogyny, including members of the app sharing techniques on how to control and exploit women. The firm has also claimed that there is evidence to suggest that the app is an illegal pyramid scheme

First instance of intellectual property piracy?

Perhaps, but of course there are still significant differences.

To make these copies you needed a team of highly skilled scribes and their accoutrements, and the ship had to wait in port for several days.

That is to say, these copies in babylon would have come at a significant cost.

JFC. Sometimes people visit us with kids and it’s just arrive > open youtube > commence rot > spice it up 9yo twerking.

My partner is pregnant with our first child. I get the convenience of free child distraction, I also get that I might find myself doing exactly this in several years, but honestly I really hope I can find ways to at least minimise this. It just seems so Orwellian or… wall-e-ian.

I swear my kids are probably going to hate me because I’ll be the most boring dad around that forces kids to play outside instead of doing all the fun stuff.

I’m sure they only do this while “mummy is visiting” and it doesn’t happen at home.

it’s got crypto.

I feel like most replies here are missing the point.

The entire premise of the statement is that privacy is about defending your dirty secrets. When people say “nothing to hide” they’re really saying “I’m not going to post about anything I want to hide”, but that still misses the point.

For me it’s the subtle principles of advertising. I don’t want to be advertised to, at all. I certainly don’t want some blog to know what adverts I’m likely to engage with, because that is simply none of their business.

That’s it. If that doesn’t bother some people, that’s entirely fine. I’m a bit weird, and the whole idea of being tracked to figure out what things I might want to buy makes me very grumpy.