sweetpotato

They are restricting his wish to exterminate a population.

My point in the first bit is that a non-profit is legally binding, at least in paper, to direct the maximum amount of subscription money to the creators. That could be the subject of corruption by people obviously, but it's an important guarantee that it won't happen. If it happens it's a scandal. If Nebula amasses profits it's not a scandal, it's an expected behaviour by a private company. Do you see the difference? In the first case there is a legal safety valve, a guarantee.

And if anything changes like I've said I cancel my subscription and support it only for as long as it is truly non profit. So the hypothetical scenario you mentioned before is outside the topic. I am talking about a non profit, when they decide to change this, it's a different company and a different discussion.

Oh and another important thing that I forgot to mention here is that, as I don't care about any creators, I don't want my subscription money to be shared proportionately to the size of the creators in the platform. I don't care about the big ones, I only care about mine, so that's a really important detail I don't like about it as well.

In the second part is the not ideal part is the fact that there are owners that are not all creators. There is a 50% of the money that is directed to the creators and another 50% that goes to the people that own Nebula. That's profit I don't want to give to them. I think I was pretty clear. Yes 50% of the profit goes to the creators and 50% of the company will be sold to them if they ever decide to do so, but the other 50% is profit for the owners. The owners have profit for doing nothing, for being the owners, that's bad and really far away from what I could get behind.

I'm not talking about ideal scenarios here, I'm talking about something that has been done already and it's perfectly within legal and technical capabilities. A simple non-profit that is transparent about their earnings and their code.

I think we've overanalyzed it though.

No I certainly do not think that people with money and power should be trusted. That's why I want it to be non-profit, the day this changes by its board of directors like you say, this hypothetical company loses my subscription and goes to the same list as Nebula. I don't get how this is a counterargument.

I don't see how the owners being a group of youtube creators is an argument. I don't care about just any creators, I care about the creators I like and respect. A 50:50 split is of course better than yt, but it's not just the running costs. Why wouldn't I subscribe to the creators I like through ko-fi for example, where they take 95-100% of the money?

Creators having a stake in a company is of course good but it's just not what I look for.

That could indeed be the case, I can't know for sure, but supposing it motivates creators and encourages more creators and audience to join, it for one takes away from Google which is always a good thing but when it's not open source and when the owners are profiting off of a big percentage of my money for doing nothing, I cannot get behind it. I'd rather support individual creators, it's simply closer to my ideal scenario.

I understand this, but the problem is that every popular platform starts off not making money and showing a good face. The problem is that there is nothing telling me it won't make Reddit's turn when it decided to go public. That's how corporations work, and the promise of the owners will never be enough when it comes to being fair to the creators and subscribers. It's true that it's unquestionably better than a YouTube monopoly, but I personally will only support individual creators until a platform that is truly non-profit emerges - I just don't see how Nebula is a step in the right direction, it follows the same old model. I understand the problems of decentralisation and that's why I was talking about a non profit - just like the Proton Foundation is.

I don't like the fact that it isn't open source, it isn't decentralised, it runs for profit like every other corporation, the money from the subscriptions don't go exclusively to the creators (or considering there are running costs for the platform, the only money deducted from the creators being these running costs), but instead 50/50.

If a decentralised video platform is too hard to achieve, then I'd want nothing less than a open source, non-profit company, being open about their running costs and how much from the subscriptions they require to cover them, for me to give them my money.

Yeah I'm sure the party that brought them in the situation they are in to begin with is their only hope for a future. It definitely represents them and their interests and not the billionaires, hence not addressing any of the real pressing issues in the world that the new generation cares about.

I don't think you can easily judge a judge. Once you get the job, which very few do as you have to go for an additional degree for two years after law school, you'd have to really fuck up to lose your job.

Only the government/state can impeach a judge by popular vote of the officials. But there is no clear legal ground for this, it can only happen when they feel like it, or when there is evidence for criminal activity, bribery, which any serious individual can get away with pretty easily, or for a grossly immoral decision and a public outrage for that. That's why it's so rare.

No actual humans are not glad, because this is not support for Palestine or anti genocide or anything like that. This is just talk to appease to voters.

Actual thinking humans can deduce that since Israel had the 100% of support from the democratic party no questions asked, not when bombing children, not when needing funding to attack Hezbollah in the north, this means that the person replacing the president from the same party, while also being the vice president of the current democratic government, will do exactly the same. As has been the case for every major foreign interest of the US.

There could have been some room for wishful thinking if she was someone new but like, she is the current vice president, the levels of gaslighting democrats are reaching is beyond me.

That's supposed to be a bad thing? Lol

It simply shows how disillusioned the new generations are about a false dilemma and that they seek a change these two clown parties can't offer. Hard to do so when both are funded by the same interests. So I'd say that with pride if I were you

For all I know, you taking the pic could've done it

Pairdrop/snapdrop is the answer, it's foss as well

Yesterday 21th of July was the hottest day in recorded global history. This year's February, April and June were the hottest respective months in recorded history. Just putting this out there