True, I remember the government trying to sell off Channel 4. Anyway I guess my point was that ads don't necessarily ruin a platform if the platform has a decent purpose other than just profit... although I definitely do hate seeing any ads, even on Channel 4 or anything else.
Interesting, maybe the content has changed, I probably don't watch enough TV to have noticed. But I think Channel 4 news is pretty good, and I liked their Paralympics coverage.
But then you could look at Channel 4, which does show ads to UK people, but I think Channel 4 is still okay and I don't think it has been ruined by ads. So maybe a profit motive is what causes enshittification, rather than just ads. I definitely hate ads but maybe ads alone don't destroy platforms.
True, they don't show commercial adverts in the UK, but they do to other countries. People outside the UK can access the BBC website but they'll see adverts on there, and apparently BBC America (shown in the US) has commercial adverts
And Channel 4 of course does show commercial adverts in the UK, but I think they still make some decent content, and I don't think they're on the verge of self-destruction
Maybe the real problem is when an entity is chasing profits, because Channel 4 isn't a normal for-profit business, since they're owned by the government, and I think they have to abide by some rules
I don't think that's necessarily true - maybe it depends on (a) the owners of the platform and/or (b) whether there are sources of funding besides advertising
E.g. here in the UK, the BBC and Channel 4 are both broadcasters owned by the government, and both are funded at least in part by adverts. But I think both of them are relatively healthy and aren't on the brink of destroying themselves.
I think most of the BBC's funding comes from the licence fee (British people pay for a TV licence) but they make some money from ads shown to international audiences. Channel 4 is solely funded by adverts I think, but it's owned by the government and I think they have to abide by certain rules and targets.
People can release photos/videos all they want, but there are many people who suffer from cancer across the UK, yet we're told to care more about the royal family because they're rich and powerful
The funny part was when he said he was a free speech absolutist, but then he started restricting the free speech of people he doesn't like
More anti-consumer stuff from corporate bigwigs
I just use Google with uBlock Origin to get rid of adverts
I'm not trying to justify unlimited greed, nor do I mean that we should permit unlimited greed. I'm saying the opposite of that - I think we should have laws to curtail unlimited greed.
But I do still think greed and selfishness are human nature, because when I look at humans, I consistently see selfishness and greed. Maybe this means I'm a pessimist but I think it's just realistic. If humans weren't inherently greedy and selfish then there would be no need for laws that punish theft.
As for whether greed and selfishness have been dominant in human societies... it looks like the rich and powerful in society, throughout history, never gave up their power and wealth unless they were made to do so.
You are wrong. HMD is a Finnish company, not Chinese. Apparently it is largely made up of former Nokia employees.
If you're going to be a smart-arse and say things like "you're welcome", maybe you should check the facts first.
I was thinking how, back in the day, the most popular web browser was IE, which wasn't on Linux. Now the most popular browser is Chrome, which has been on Linux since 2009 or whenever it was.
And of course lots of other big software is on Linux, like VS Code, Zoom, Slack, Skype. And Linux is on the Steam Deck. So yes I agree, Linux has come a long way.