←back to thread

Let me pay for Firefox

(discourse.mozilla.org)
803 points csmantle | 8 comments | 13 Jul 25 08:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
mzhaase ◴[13 Jul 25 09:51 UTC] No.44548951[source]▶
We need more paid stuff. Making everything advertising funded has given advertisers too much power over society. We don't see real human opinion anymore, we see advertising friendly opinions.
replies(7): >>44549016 #>>44549032 #>>44549264 #>>44550037 #>>44550230 #>>44551593 #>>44551626 #
andrepd ◴[13 Jul 25 10:43 UTC] No.44549264[source]▶
It's not easy when the purchasing power of the working class has been falling steadily for the last 45 years. We have now blown past Gilded Age-levels of economic inequality and there's no signs of stopping.
replies(2): >>44549359 #>>44549922 #
1. petesergeant ◴[13 Jul 25 10:58 UTC] No.44549359{3}[source]▶
> when the purchasing power of the working class has been falling steadily for the last 45 years

Yeah? How much did an always-on pocket sized computer connected to the internet cost in 1980?

replies(2): >>44549479 #>>44550269 #
2. zetsurin ◴[13 Jul 25 11:25 UTC] No.44549479[source]▶
This is a weird strawman and it has almost nothing to do the parent's claim. The guilded age is 1870-1890's.
replies(1): >>44549722 #
3. petesergeant ◴[13 Jul 25 12:02 UTC] No.44549722[source]▶
I was replying to the bit I quoted?
replies(1): >>44550670 #
4. izzydata ◴[13 Jul 25 13:22 UTC] No.44550269[source]▶
Manufacturing a pocket sized computer has become equivalently easier as it is cheaper to purchase.
5. bee_rider ◴[13 Jul 25 14:26 UTC] No.44550670{3}[source]▶
Even if you had managed to come up with a point by selectively quoting the post, that would still be bad. The good-faith way to engage with somebody’s post is to reply to the meaning of the overall post. It might be necessary to cut some parts out for logical flow, but that shouldn’t change the meaning of what you are replying to.
replies(1): >>44552365 #
6. petesergeant ◴[13 Jul 25 18:25 UTC] No.44552365{4}[source]▶
Attacking a point by attacking its supporting points is a pretty standard way of going about arguing.
replies(1): >>44552701 #
7. bee_rider ◴[13 Jul 25 19:12 UTC] No.44552701{5}[source]▶
Sure, but not just by contradicting arbitrary sub-sentence snippets of text devoid of context. An attack against a supporting point should be related to the way that it supports the overall argument.
replies(1): >>44552899 #
8. petesergeant ◴[13 Jul 25 19:33 UTC] No.44552899{6}[source]▶
It’s fully the first half of the comment rather than a few words taken out of context