Because they’re fascists.

They scanned your message and found you were critical of Israel, a team has been sent to your location to resolve the issue.

If driver’s licenses were invented today they’d be a public-private partnership.

I know what you’re saying, I’m just raising the class question. There are “good” reasons for the rich to use capitalism, after all.

Poverty is a necessary component of capitalism. It’s not arbitrary, it’s calculated.

Is anyone arguing at this point?

It’s not decentralized. There’s no argument.

Literally microscopic.

… all proteins are tiny?

It’s a long term committed relationship!

There’s also the possibility of broader economic headwinds causing decreased youth employment, even if they haven’t hit older workers yet.

The current US government wouldn’t nationalize industry.

Doesn’t that tell you something?

That’s what Google and Apple want you to think, and they’ve spent a lot of money to make sure you keep thinking that way.

Nationalize Google and Apple.

💅

They airbrushed people’s faces.

If a computer changed my face because I’m too ugly for advertisers I’d fucking kill myself.

Humiliating. Degrading. Dehumanizing.

The creation process is private and personal, interfering with it is a violation of that privacy. This is at least privacy adjacent, and I don’t know why you won’t admit that.

You’re tilting at windmills anyway. Judging by the way the community is engaging with the OP, they agree with me.

Yes, any editing done without the author’s consent is a violation of the personal and private creative process. There are obviously degrees of violation, so on the low end there’s other examples you gave like resizing a video or colorizing a photo without permission. Then on the other end we have the fucking nightmare of YouTube changing my face because I’m too ugly.

The point is, you’re defending YouTube for doing something heinous. Do you think this is okay?

YouTube inserting itself into the creative process in an unwanted way is a violation of something that was previously personal and private. The artistic choices a video creator makes are their own, changing them changes the meaning of what they created and violates the authentic connection between the artist and the audience. Imagine if the comments you made on videos were edited to be something else -it’s a violation of our ability to even express ourselves in public. A private decision making process is being taken away from artists.

This isn’t unrelated to privacy.

Someone agreeing to a TOS doesn’t actually eliminate the privacy concerns.

You might have missed the problem.

We have an authentic connection to the author when we engage with their content, the editing and lighting and scripting is a reality they create and share with us.

What YouTube did was mediate the connection between the creator and the viewers. YouTube destroyed the reality that the author was trying to create for their viewers and substituted its own reality instead.

People don’t really go to services for god or salvation, they do it for community.