[1] YouTube Anti Shorts - https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/441709-youtube-anti-shorts...
[2] Hide Instagram Feed, Stories, Reels, and Explore Page - https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/474087-hide-instagram-feed...
[3] Bypass Instagram Login Redirects - https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/420604-bypass-instagram-lo...
Note: I use[1] regularly, Since I don't have an instagram account I don't have a need to use[2] instead I use[3].
My pattern of YouTube watching:
1. On my laptop, 99% searching for specific videos like tutorials/reviews of something. Almost never looking for entertainment.
2. On my phone, 80% looking for entertainment + a few reviews
This is not a non-argument used keep things the same (and bad).
Use a browser that allows you to modify the content in a way that presents the content you want. That's the boundary you have to play with. My computer gives the information I want to your computer. Your computer does what it wants with that information.
If your OS doesn't allow you to use a browser of your choice, then that is the restriction you attack. Not mine.
They do this with Threads as well. If you’re not on there long enough, they’ll pretend there are notifications waiting for you, but it’s just “Posts that might be of interest to you”. They’ll even show this fake data on Instagram to get you to open Threads.
I get that companies are designed to soullessly seek optimization of revenue. But there are humans who work at them and those humans do have free will to be party to it or not.
Exactly, every single manipulative, exploitive, and outright evil act attributed to a 'company' was thought of, planned, executed, and overseen by actual people.
Is it a common millennial thing, or is it just me where those have the opposite effect? Shorts etc. annoy me heavily, and the more they get pushed on me, the less I use something. It’s like those people on WhatsApp sending you a voice message because instead of typing.
For me it was a quick way down from "these are annoying" to "oh, just another short that aligns with my interests".
You can get rid of money and have communism if you want and guarantee that all have what they need. But somewhere beyond need there is want, and the line is awfully fuzzy.
You can have a barter society if you want, where people trade pineapples for shoes, but you are always going to have people who want more shoes or more pineapples than what others have.
In a democracy, elected leaders are not as empowered to satisfy their greed as monarchs are in monarchies. Socialism extends this logic to businesses: An elected business leader would not be able to satisfy their greed to the same extent that a capitalist business owner can.
Let's say you are a cart pusher in a free market. After ten years of cart pushing, you land on a trading opportunity and capitalize on it. Then you hire more cart pushers.
Now you have a responsibility. Either keep the business going, or everyone loses their job.
Then others smell profit and eat up your market share. Now you have to stay afloat and the workers suffer.
As the emergent properties build up, we end up with a modern free market society with all the romanticized "class wars" worker abuse and peeing in a bottle drama all because the job market exists.
It is like an ouroboros ironically nibbling on its tail while winking.
How would you fix it or improve it?
A potential mitigation could be for governments to make the bad consequences more illegal. And in order to do so they need not be influenced by the algorithm, but unfortunately they are.
In short: The problem with capitalism is class striation. Society is divided into a capital-owning class and a labouring class. Capitalists, as they control the productive capital in our economy, portion out economic profits as they see fit, paying labourers as little as is necessary while retaining for themselves the maximum possible amount. Labourers, owning negligible amounts of capital themselves, are dependent on capitalists for work and have little recourse.
Hence, power consolidates in the hands of capitalists. They have leverage over politicians through lobbyists, over the public through media, and over their employees through the threat of job loss. The labouring class are second-class citizens. Healthcare is inaccessible to many them. They're frequently mired in debt. If they become disabled, they could easily lose their homes and wind up on the street.
In one sense, the solution is obvious: Dissolve the boundary between these classes so that none of these class inequalities exist anymore. Now, how is that done? Who knows. The traditional answer is, "the tensions in the existing system will exacerbate until the workers all organize and force a new status quo upon society," but that doesn't seem to be happening. Then again, if we had a solution, the problem wouldn't exist anymore, would it.
Anyway, what does it mean to "implement" a critique? All I did was point out the problems with capitalism, for which there is plenty of empirical evidence.
If you want to know which policies I support implementing, I'm afraid they're relatively dull and incrementalist, since policy can't reorder the global economy by fiat.