Not just frequent jokes, but those annoying ever-repeating jokes. Like as if 80% of users were the same person. Before opening any post on Reddit, there is a good chance to be able to correctly predict the exact content of a significant portion of the comments. I get that it can be funny to an individual to come across stuff like "I also choose this guys wife" or "And my axe" more than once. But for people like me, who did not just start using the website, it is really annoying to come across the same jokes literally hundreds of times.

This goes hand in hand with the general idea of a "Reddit hivemind". Depending on the subs you visit, you can see that Reddits userbase is actually really diverse. There are people from every demographic with all kinds of different life experiences. But in a lot of subs, anytime a woman is mentioned there is a flood of people acting like as if there are no women on the internet and as if no person using Reddit could have a girlfriend. Again, I get that it can be funny once or twice. But when the idea that every user must be a typical "Redditor" gets repeated all the time it's just annoying. Needless to say that I don't look forward to being called a "Lemming" on this site.

Also, repeating comments on the same post. Obviously you don't have to read all the comments if there are already hundreds of them. But if there are too many comments saying the exact same thing it just gets harder to read them all. So it would be nice if people would look whether the point they want to make maybe has been made already. They can increase that comment's visibility by upvoting. No need to make other people read the same content multiple times and by that make it harder to read different comments.

But if you actually had infinite time, then that would mean that the world for all intents and purposes has ended. It would never continue, ever. No matter what you do, it would have absolutely no impact at all.

Furthermore, I imagine if you actually had to wait infinitely long for the answer to finish, that would be like hell. There is only so much you can look at in a frozen world, assuming you would even be able to move at all. I can hardly imagine any happiness after some billions and trillions of years of no new stimuli in a frozen world.

I would like to know what the general opinion about this sentence is.
Personally, I think that people like that are too dangerous to ever be let free again. But I still believe that we should never allow anyone to kill someone for punishment.

Also I'm wondering whether other's opinions are influenced by how much they like the works of KyoAni.
I don't think it should matter at all. But to be honest, the only reason I even read about the fire was because anime communities were posting about it.

Passend zu deiner Frage und dem Thema allgemein kann ich den im Artikel verlinkten weiteren Artikel von netzpolitik.org sehr empfehlen. Unter Anderem auch, um darauf aufmerksam zu machen, was für extrem tiefgreifende Kontrollen die Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz seitens aller Anbieter im Netz verlangt.

Dort wird die EU-Richtlinie über audiovisuelle Mediendienste verlinkt. In dieser steht auf Seite 12 unter Artikel 6a:

Die schädlichsten Inhalte wie grundlose Gewalttätigkeiten und Pornografie müssen den strengsten Maßnahmen unterliegen.

Eine wirkliche Quelle dafür, dass Pornos die Entwicklung so sehr schädigen würden, habe ich aber bisher nirgends gesehen.

Solche Propaganda ist gefährlich. Besonders der vorletzte Absatz. Da wird, wiedermal mit Kindern als Vorwand, behauptet, man wolle ohne Absolutismus die Privatsphäre wahren "und rechtmäßig und ausnahmsweise auf der Grundlage einer rechtmäßigen Vollmacht" handeln. Für die Sicherheit sollen sich andere Leute dann Lösungen einfallen lassen.

Das klingt alles so vernünftig und nachvollziehbar. Aber nur, wenn man ausblendet, was das in der Realität bedeutet.

Sobald die technische Grundlage dafür da ist, Menschen aufgrund der Inhalte ihrer privaten Kommunikation zu verhaften, gibt es keinen effektiven Schutz davor, dass eben nicht nur "die Bösen" in Haft genommen werden. Dann können die, die die Kontrolle über den Überwachungsapparat haben, ganz schnell umdefinieren, was alles als "Böse" gilt. Das wäre ein Freifahrtsschein für alle zukünftigen Regierungen, alle politisch unerwünschten Menschen aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen. Ganz legal. Es muss nur nach etwas gesucht werden, was mit etwas Interpretationsspielraum als "Böse" umgedeutet werden kann.

Das Problem ist, dass man den einfachen Bürger natürlich leicht davon überzeugt bekommt, das alles gut zu finden. Man betont einfach oft genug die öffentliche Sicherheit und Kinder und sagt dabei, dass die Tech-Konzerne sich doch gerne trotzdem um Sicherheit und Privatsphäre kümmern sollen. Dann scheint das ja eine perfekte Lösung für schlimme und reale Probleme zu sein. Der "nichts zu verbergen"-Gedanke kommt dabei von ganz allein.

Could somebody explain why this is bad? I'm not a fan of all this AI stuff. But I can't think of an argument besides "Big tech is bad and they should not make money if they use public information to do so."

I'm genuinely curious. There may be massive amounts of data being processed. But only public data, right? If they can use that data for something, isn't that something positive? Or at the very least nothing negative? I always thought anything that is posted in public spaces means making it available for anyone to use anyway. So what am I missing here?

Cool, danke dir fürs teilen. Das ist so eine Art von Bericht, die ich für zwischendurch ganz interessant finde, bei dem ich aber nicht selbst auf die Idee käme, nach sowas zu suchen.

Damit bestätigt sich mein Eindruck aus meinem Umfeld, dass gerade leicht überdurchschnittlich viele Leute erkältungsähnlich krank sind. Aber bisher noch in einem nicht besorgniserregenden Maße.

Ich denke mal, da hat sich jemand einen Scherz erlaubt.
In letzter Zeit fiel einem Bekannten von mir auf, dass vereinzelt auch ganze Artikel in der Tagesschau erscheinen würden, die thematisch entweder völlig deplatziert wirken würden oder so geschrieben seien, als könne das nicht von jemandem stammen, der das beruflich machen sollte. So als würde da jemand austesten, wie viel Schabernack er treiben könne, bevor er auffällt.

So wenig ich den Merz auch leiden kann, muss man hier aber aufpassen, was man suggeriert.
Durch den Titel wirkt es auf mich so, als hätte Merz persönlich entschieden, dass mittels Hausdurchsuchungen gegen kleine Beleidigungen vorgegangen werden solle. Verantwortlich für diese Entscheidung scheint aber nicht er als Steller des Strafantrages zu sein, sondern die Staatsanwaltschaft und das Amtsgericht.

Wenn man sich jetzt über das Vorgehen vom Merz echauffiert, müsste man es konsequenterweise beim Habeck ebenso tun, der ja auch Strafanträge wegen Beleidigungen stellt.

(Natürlich könnte man noch kritisieren, welche Posts im einzelnen überhaupt strafrechtlich verfolgt werden.)

Das ist ein guter Punkt, danke dafür. Solche künstlichen Brücken nicht zu bestärken ist schon sinnvoll. Dass ich überhaupt einen Zusammenhang zur Partei in meinem Kommentar hergestellt habe, war vielleicht nicht klug von mir. Ich habe mich wohl schon daran gewöhnt, dass die Einflüsse auf das Klima von Leuten, die für Klimaschutz werben, regelmäßig thematisiert werden.

Andererseits finde ich aber, dass der Artikel durchaus einen guten Job dabei gemacht hat, die anlassgebende Person vom eigentlichen Inhalt zu trennen. Es gibt eine Einleitung mit den Infos zum aktuellen Fall. Danach ist es ein reiner Artikel über Kerosinablässe im Allgemeinen, mit allem was dazugehört.

Aber klar, schöner wäre es, wenn sowas nicht immer nur im Zusammenhang mit bestimmten politisch aktiven Personen diskutiert werden würde.

Wow, there are a lot of comments describing how neccessary it must be to use adblock. I don't think I can actually change anyone's mind here, but I'm going to share my perspective anyway:

While I don't agree with the statement quoted in the original post, I do think that ads are neccessary for most websites I visit to function. Not because of the content creators, but because of the companies running the platforms.

I know, ads can be problematic. But to outright block all ads is no solution. Privacy and data protection are very important to me, so I'm against every form of targeted ads. But just generic or maybe contextual ads? I don't see any harm in that. Malware is mentioned often in other comments. I disable JavaScript whenever I can. That's absolutely enough for blocking all ads to not make any real difference in terms of security. Although I have to admit that blocking scripts also blocks some ads.

But still, I see all ads on YouTube and search engines for example. And I'm happy to see them. It's incredible that such platforms, providing so many people with access to so much content from so many other people can actually exist. There are a lot of resources needed for this.

And if I still don't want to see ads simply because I don't want to? Then I don't have to, even without any adblockers. If I don't think a website is worth the ads it thinks it needs to show me, then I don't have to use it. I can just leave. If it is easy to provide the same service without ads then there must be countless alternatives already.

Thank you. I haven't thought about copyright just now. This is indeed something that needs to be addressed.

Although I personally still don't have much of a problem with that. I think copyright laws are highly debatable.

No, I don't have heard of such a website. (Although the comment made by Shady_Shiroe comes funnily close to it.) But that is probably because all ad supported sites I visit have more than enough users without adblock to support themselves.

From a pure, real and practical standpoint you are right. For you and me and most users here it won't do any harm to use adblock. But that only works because there are so many people who don't. If everyone were to use adblock now, then the websites would start to either find ways to circumvent the adblock or they would not be available anymore, either because they went down or got paywalled. I'm fine with paying for some websites. But there are too many things I think are useful on the internet to be able to pay for each and every thing I see individually or via subscription.

What I want to say is that I don't think it would be good if a big portion of users would start to use adblock so I don't think it could be right for any individual person to do so, even if you can't tell how many more adblock users it would take to make a negative impact.

Hello. I enjoy reading through discussion threads and noticed there wasn't one for Rent-a-Girlfriend yet, so I created one. If there is anything I might have missed, please let me know.

This season already starts with too much cringeworthy lusting over Chizuru from Kazuya. I really don't like those parts. Maybe they help the show by having people talk about it? Idk. But still, I'm kinda invested and want to see more. I look forward to wherever this is going. It looks like some drama involving Ruka, Mami and possibly at some point the neighbor Mini is about to unfold.

This is a good explanation, thank you. I didn't think about people who literally post stuff to earn money. Since so much talk already revolved around scraping sites like Lemmy, that was all I had in mind.

What you describe sounds like the same problem with services that avoid paywalls or ads of news sites.

In this case I fully aggree that some solution needs to be found.

If you don't want to trust people in churches near you, you can try to slowly gather all the answers you want on your own from the internet. But be careful with this!
For one, there are many more possibilities to get the wrong answers online than in local communities. So it can easily happen to fall in deep rabbit holes of stuff that won't benefit you.
And, it can be really overwhelming to sort out information about such topics online. So please, take things slowly. I don't think that your god expects you to be perfectly informed in a matter of days, weeks or even months.

If you are able to slowly explore the answers to whatever questions you might have, you will most likely find everything you need.
Just by watching YouTube videos alone, one could spend thousands upon thousands of hours educating oneself about all this stuff. But again, be careful with that. Take small steps.

Regarding your original question, Nemo has already given you a good answer. I want to add that if you believe in heaven and hell, why would you care if you efforts are rewarded in this life? Wouldn't you try to "be as good as you can", no matter how others react to that? Would your god not reward you after your death accordingly and punish those who treated you unfairly, if they truly deserve punishment? So why even care? If you believe in a god that eventually brings justice to everyone, just try to be as good of a person as you can be. Whatever this exactly means for you.

Ich finde, mit diesem Kommentar hast du das, was ich mir wünschen würde, schon ziemlich gut erfüllt. Dass Amthor und seine Kollegen kritisierungswürdige Sachen verbergen, ist doch schon mal etwas, was man, wie du es getan hast, kritisieren kann.
Wenn man daraus jetzt Memes machen würde, hätte ich nichts dagegen. Das klingt mir auch mit einer Wortwahl wie der deinen viel sachlicher und mehr auf seine Taten bezogen als ein Witz über sein jugendliches Aussehen.

Oh, ok, I get what you are saying.
Well, unfortunately those are problems of a caliber that I wouldn't be able to solve for you. Nor do I think that anybody else here can.

A (somewhat vague) answer for your first point might be that you need to change your perspective. But that is easier said than done and I don't want to pretend that I know how shitty your live might actually is.

For your second point, it is at least very good that you were able to recognize bad content on your own. Many people fail that.
You could try to find drastically different videos from different groups of people. Again, I know this is easier said than done.

I think most people on Lemmy are strictly against religion, so I don't think you will find much help in that regard here.
Maybe as a starting point, you could try to find resources from a totally different group of people. Depending on your exact questions you might want to watch videos about what people of other religions might have to say about that.
Like, if you want to know more about something from the old testament you could try to watch videos from jews, or if you have questions about Jesus you could look up what the muslims have to say about that.

I wish you all the best! Try to endure until you know, what it is you can strive for.

Nö, so sehe ich das gar nicht. Ich würde auch einen einzelnen Menschen, der "Scheiß auf Araber" sagen würde, als Rassisten ansehen. Das einzige, wo man Rassismus bei den wiedergegebenen Worten hineininterpretieren könnte, wäre bei "solltest froh sein, weil auch wenn du Ausländer bist, siehst aber nicht arabisch aus". Aber es ist auch völlig denkbar, dass das in keinster Weise abwertend gegenüber Ausländern gemeint gewesen sein könnte. Das lässt sich über so eine beschränkte Textwiedergabe überhaupt nicht zuverlässig sagen.

Meine Gedanken dazu wurden nach deinem Kommentar ganz gut vom Nutzer aktenkundig auf den Punkt gebracht. Das scheint mir einfach eine allgemein sehr negativ eingestellte Person zu sein. So welche kenne ich auch persönlich. Ich finde es furchtbar anstrengend in deren Gegenwart.

Aber ich bin dennoch gerne vorsichtig damit, vorschnell Menschen und ihre Meinungen mit handfesten Mitteln zu unterdrücken. Ich möchte nicht in einem Land leben, in dem sowas auch die "guten" meinungen treffen könnte, wenn man mehr von der "schlechten" Meinung in seinem Umfeld hat.

Daher empfehle ich, wenn man die Kraft dazu hat, Kontra zu geben. Andernfalls klar machen, dass man von sowas einfach nichts hören will.