I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your words.

And the reason I said you were obstinate were because you were. You refused to accept that it works since it doesn’t do it in the way you want it to. And now you’re rage-downvoting. You should probably take a few minutes off.

EDIT: No, you didn’t state that it didn’t work after seven minutes and multiple routs of attempting to get the link to resolve. I see that you have edited that in later, in one of the later comments. It worked on the reload for me. And no, it’s not preventing input to improve a product, it’s asking you to be less absolutist in your comments. “It doesn’t work as well as it should” compared to your “it doesn’t work”. When it obviously does work, albeit could work better.

Edit: No ;P

Who said I can program?

EDIT: If I could do the work to make it work better I would.

EDIT:
obstinate
adjective
ob·​sti·​nate ˈäb-stə-nət : stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion

Sound’s like you’re just being obstinate, then. It works, just not how you would prefer (well, I would also prefer that it didn’t give an error screen like that, but that’s besides the point). This is still early days of an open source project, and for that one should have a bit more understanding than for corporate products. A lot of other services also started out very unpolished and took time to get better.

The good thing is that you should be able to contribute and make it so that it doesn’t do that since you wrote you were a software developer for your whole career.

EDIT: nice angry downvote, Cosmic Cleric…

Yeah, that would work as well. I’m sure there are times when there isn’t a community that someone made such a link to, and at those times it should show an error screen, obviously.

So you’re saying you did know that Lemmy has the thing where if you’re the first one to ask to get community data from another instance the link will give you an error and you must click it again (or reload) to get the instanced version of that community for your instance, and then say that it doesn’t work?

That doesn’t sound to me like you knew how Lemmy works. I can agree that it should be more hands-off for the user and the server should silently just do the thing to get the instanced community before sending data back to the client, but that’s a different argument.

That is how Lemmy works. Not my fault if you didn’t know that.

Like Trainguyrom wrote, you’re probably the first user on your instance trying to access it. Try the link again. It’s the proper way to link to communities using Lemmy. Your link doesn’t give people on other instances the easy option to subscribe to the community.

EDIT: Interestingly enough it looks like someone went through the first page of my profile and downvoted each comment of mine. Hmmm, how very strange ;P

Oh, absolutely. And it’s just gotten worse with the intrusiveness and amount of ads everywhere. Piracy also seems to become the only way to avoid far too much data collection about us as well.

No. Making a claim that adblocking is a form of piracy does not in any way say that either piracy nor adblocking is immoral. Only if they actually make a claim that piracy is immoral can it be transferred like that.

You also seem to make the claim that anyone equating adblocking and piracy are speaking against them. Why are you making such a claim?

Also *it’s, *didn’t. It’s not that hard.

Where did you get that it was immoral from? I don’t see many (anyone?) that have claimed that.

You’re more of a bad actor with your tantrums and rage-downvoting.

I wish you a better future.

EDIT: also to add that I simply made a note of it, specifically in a spoiler, while you were the one to try to make it into a conversation and talk about it. It really shows more about you than about me.

Sure, let everything require that you pay upfront for everything. Those too poor to afford to pay don’t deserve to have access to it anyway, right?

I’m not saying that ads are good, but having an option for people to pay to access a service that isn’t directly tied to money they have accessible seems better than barring them from that access. At the same time that option cannot be too intrusive or otherwise be too much of a negative before it becomes predatory. We can wish for the world to be perfect as much as we want, that doesn’t make it so. We can work towards a future where people don’t have to work to be able to live comfortably and where we have very different ways to compensate people for their time and effort on top of that. But we’re not there.

I’m not quite sure what you meant by your last paragraph, though.

Oh, I could see past your errors, I was just pointing it out. Errors do not help credibility, almost ever. (There might be some times it does, but I’m not sure I would want to gain credibility with people that would take such as helping my credibility). If you disagree with this I don’t know what to tell you. I also didn’t actually attack your credibility (I don’t really think you have any, but that’s a different matter), but made an observation that you could make sure your writing is better to not detract from your credibility. With the amount of tools available to avoid spelling mistakes it doesn’t really matter whether English isn’t a language one is perfectly proficient in.

I have clearly expressed what makes adblocking equate to piracy. It’s in the first paragraph of the first comment of mine you replied to. It should be fairly straight forward. Consuming without paying.

I reject your premise that it’s like microtransactions in gaming, unless you specifically mean in “free” games. Of course microtransactions and a lot of DLC for paid games are enshittification, but that’s more like asking you to pay more to access a new episode of a show or a scene from a show you’ve already paid for. Not near the same as having ads to pay for the costs of delivering content (and I include producing the content in “delivering” it).

Now, if you instead make the argument that the amount of ads or the contents of ads are enshittificating services that let you consume content without directly paying for it yourself I can agree. But not that ads themselves are enshittification. Nor that avoiding to pay to consume content isn’t piracy. I just think it’s self-deception to claim that not paying by blocking ads isn’t piracy. I have also made it clear that I think blocking ads is perfectly reasonable and what should be done. It may not be piracy in the legal sense, but circumventing systems meant to pay for something seems perfectly in line with the colloquial sense of the word.

No, I fully believe you’re making different issues into one, which is dishonest argumentation.

Adblockers are functionally equivalent to piracy, the fact that some entities abuse others is a different issue. It’s the same as with gambling mechanics in games, the fact that most people would think that those are predatory and bad does not change that not paying for the game is piracy. It’s possible to be more nuanced about things than to group everything together.

The situation they created was to kill one person, versus the situation that existed was that 5 people would die.

The difference is between action and inaction and the fact that it’s easier to say “you caused something” if you took some action than if you simply didn’t take an action.

To be fair, it makes sense to liken the use of ad blockers with piracy. Consuming the content without paying for it either way, either without directly paying yourself or without indirectly paying through watching ads. Doesn’t change that ads on most parts of the internet are extremely invasive and far too much.

I feel fully entitled to protect myself from the ads because of the problems with them. But I don’t feel the need to lie to myself about the fact that I’m consuming content without paying for it in some way. Then again I support some content creators that I feel deserve it. Not sure if that helps offset it somewhat or not, but I don’t really care that much either.

To be fair, Merriam Webster seem to think that you can spell it “calk” ;P

TIL
I’ve only seen it written “caulk” until now.

If anything does something to your dog you don’t agree with you are fully entitled to remove that thing from being near your dog. Grab the other dog by the collar and drag it away (not yanking, controlled movements).

If the owner of the other dog gets angry at this then state that you wouldn’t have had to do so if they had the skills to keep their dog having good behaviour. Some times people need a verbal slap in the face to even start thinking about if they should do better. They won’t agree with you in the situation, but it may help effect some change in their behaviour over time.