ObjectivityIncarnate

clicking on a weird video and you permanently scar your algorithm.

It’s trivial to delete individual videos from your watch history, even moreso if you just saw it. Doing so makes it as if you never clicked on it in the first place.

Facebook is that way.

I feel like I got 10 years younger seeing this Facebook-tier image on Lemmy of all places, lol.

those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad.

This demographic is much, much smaller than you probably assume it is–I mean ‘statistically insignificant’ small.

People are really bad at discussing political topics without getting all riled up

Understatement of the century, lol. And social media’s influence has only exacerbated the overall polarization/radicalization, making civil discussion in that area feel like even more of a pipe dream as time goes on.

You have no idea what prompted the emotions, you just happily assume whatever will give you the excuse to express your misandry.

I’d bet anything that if you read one of the many accounts of women getting genuinely angry at their SOs, even striking them (which is way worse than striking an inanimate object, by the way), based on what they dreamt the guy did, you wouldn’t be blaming her “fragile femininity”.

For all we know, guy had just received some horrible/devastating news.

The assumptions leading to both the ‘framing’ act and the gleeful posting of it on social media are just a manifestation of thinly-veiled misandry.

In the US at least, we already pay more every year in welfare programs than we could afford even if we wealth taxed our “very richest” at literally 100%. Nearly $800 billion. Yearly. This is not a solution.

We as a country pay more than enough taxes already, period. It’s the government not spending it efficiently, and not being held accountable when it doesn’t.

As just one example, the US government already pays more per person for healthcare than any other nation on the planet. But how many health categories are we first place in? We put the most in, we should be getting the most out, right?

The majority just give enough to lessen their tax burden.

There is no amount of charity you can give that results in you having more money than if you hadn’t, Kramer.

My man I don’t think I give a shit where you think I belong.

show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions

You can’t prove a negative, screwball. It’s literally impossible to prove “never took advantage of anyone” about anyone, billionaire or not.

Not that you aren’t almost certainly using an overbroad definition of ‘take advantage’, on top of it.

I’m down to change my view.

No, you aren’t. People who are don’t play these kinds of semantic games.

I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.

Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s false.

Which of course is a stupid comparison indicative of economic ignorance, because wealth does not grow linearly for anyone who doesn’t stuff their money under a mattress.

Fun fact, the PS3, whose top model was $599 at launch, would have cost over $900 in 2024 dollars.

So this is actually not the worst it’s ever been, even for this company, lol

1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.

imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.

That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.

You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.

No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.

And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?

This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.

Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.

The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.

Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.

Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol