No one “promised” this. It was a thought-piece written by some one, neither endorsing or opposing it, with the intent of sparking a discussion about it. But good on you for parroting the talking point instead of thinking for yourself.
I don’t think you know what a thought piece is. There is no analysis or opinion from the author.
Plus when people share their take on it, you just accuse them of parroting talking points. You have added nothing to this conversation past various forms of “you’re wrong,” with only insults to serve as counter points.
That said, if you want to try to explain to us why you feel a corporation taking away access to something that was bought is fair and just, I’m all ears and more than willing to have the discussion with you that you claim to want.
I don’t think you know what a thought piece is. There is no analysis or opinion from the author.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that I don’t realize a thought piece doesn’t require analysis or opinion, or are you suggesting that the piece was not a thought piece because it included analysis and/or opinion? Regardless, you are wrong.
Although from the rest of your post, I’m guess it’s a third option that you don’t know about the WEF thought piece “You’ll own nothing be happy”, a criticism of which this poster is mindlessly parroting.
Plus when people share their take on it, you just accuse them of parroting talking points.
If someone had actually given “their take” on it, by more than parroting the long-since debunked sound-bite, and I told them they were just parroting a talking point, then this comment would hold some water. But it really rings pretty hollow right here.
That said, if you want to try to explain to us why you feel a corporation taking away access to something that was bought is fair and just,
I never said nor suggested it was, I very explicitly said “no one ‘promised’ this.” It was very clear what, explicitly, I was disagreeing with. I absolutely think it is wrong that they did this, but this thread is filled with the same thoughtless sophomoric BS logic and thoughtless spin on a thought-piece that we see everywhere else this story comes up. They put no thought into it, they just repeat what they heard someone else say. They were met with the same level of dismissiveness that they provided, just a version that more accurately represents the reality.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
No one “promised” this. It was a thought-piece written by some one, neither endorsing or opposing it, with the intent of sparking a discussion about it. But good on you for parroting the talking point instead of thinking for yourself.
The only advice I’ll take from you is your username.
Imagine being so hung up on the desire to live in a fantasy that you would reject the advice to “think for yourself.” lol Holy shit, amazing.
I don’t think you know what a thought piece is. There is no analysis or opinion from the author.
Plus when people share their take on it, you just accuse them of parroting talking points. You have added nothing to this conversation past various forms of “you’re wrong,” with only insults to serve as counter points.
That said, if you want to try to explain to us why you feel a corporation taking away access to something that was bought is fair and just, I’m all ears and more than willing to have the discussion with you that you claim to want.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that I don’t realize a thought piece doesn’t require analysis or opinion, or are you suggesting that the piece was not a thought piece because it included analysis and/or opinion? Regardless, you are wrong.
Although from the rest of your post, I’m guess it’s a third option that you don’t know about the WEF thought piece “You’ll own nothing be happy”, a criticism of which this poster is mindlessly parroting.
If someone had actually given “their take” on it, by more than parroting the long-since debunked sound-bite, and I told them they were just parroting a talking point, then this comment would hold some water. But it really rings pretty hollow right here.
I never said nor suggested it was, I very explicitly said “no one ‘promised’ this.” It was very clear what, explicitly, I was disagreeing with. I absolutely think it is wrong that they did this, but this thread is filled with the same thoughtless sophomoric BS logic and thoughtless spin on a thought-piece that we see everywhere else this story comes up. They put no thought into it, they just repeat what they heard someone else say. They were met with the same level of dismissiveness that they provided, just a version that more accurately represents the reality.