Complaining that no one actually read or is engaging with the posted article is absolutely less whiny than airing grievances that are only tangentially related to the posted topic.
You know I will initially attempt to cooperate. You know that if you defect, I will still try to cooperate. What is your most rational strategy?
Your most rational strategy is very obviously to defect. My strategy of cooperation, and your knowledge of my strategy made defecting the rational choice for you.
So who is to blame? You for rationally choosing your own self interest? Or me for failing to come up with a strategy that leads to better outcomes?
Republicans packed the courts while Democrats were complaining about republican obstructionism under Obama. You can blame republicans all you want, but democrats need to take responsibility.
So what I am saying is both sides are responsible.
I agree with the other commenters about the scale of this “deriving inspiration from others” is where this feels wrong.
It feels similar to the ye olden debates on police surveillance. Acquiring a warrant to tail a suspect, tapping a single individual’s phone line, etc all feels like very normal run-of-the-mill police work that no one has a problem with. Collating your behavior across every website and device you own from a data broker is fundamentally the same thing as a single phone’s wiretap, but it obviously feels way grosser and more unethical because it scales way past the point of what you’d imagine as being acceptable.
In that example it's not the scale that makes it right or wrong, the scale of people impacted just affects the degree of wrongs that have been committed.
> Acquiring a warrant to tail a suspect, tapping a single individual’s phone line, etc all feels like very normal run-of-the-mill police work that no one has a problem with.
If acquiring a warrant is the basic action being scaled, I'd be okay with that ethically if it was done under, what I define as, reasonable pretenses. Regardless of how it scales, I still think it would be the right thing to do assuming the pretenses for the first action could be applied to everyone wiretapped. Now if I thought the base action was morally wrong (someone was tailed or wiretapped without proper pretenses), I'd think it's wrong regardless of the scale. The number of people it affected might impact how wrong I saw it, but not whether it was right or wrong to.
Because Twitter Blue users get promoted to the top of everyone’s feeds and comments, and historically they just aren’t very bright or clever on average. The end result is Twitter actively making my feed worse to satisfy the ego of people not funny enough to get to the top of feeds naturally.
I use this plugin and it rules, it’s purged thousands of the most annoying people from my feed without me having to lift a finger.
By buying Blue you are expressing the opinion that buying Blue and putting the checkmark on your profile is worth your money. That is a reasonable thing to use to judge people, isn't it?
No, by buying Blue you are buying Blue, nothing else. This may be because you like the checkmark, or for political reasons, or for other reasons, but those are not clear.
