Google isn’t an ISP when it comes to youtube. Yes, they are an ISP in the context of Google fiber but this is completely different. It would be a violation of net neutrality if they slowed certain sites to fiber users.

Net neutrality is about ISPs though.

Yes, because no one has ever smoked before they reached the legal age.

People always forget he was literally sued into buying twitter. He never wanted to buy it, he was just playing stupid games like he always does.

Huh? I mean I’d argue that the local authorities have the most responsibility in this case. I don’t really think google is too responsible here. I guess you could make an argument that people tried reporting it but ultimately the local authorities should have clearly blocked it off. It’s really no different than using an old physical map; it shows you the way but things change so you always need to use discretion. I can’t count how many times I’ve followed my GPS only to be blocked by construction or something along those lines. In those situations, there needs to be clear signage or a barricade which is basically what I’m arguing is applicable here.

i seriously doubt that he saw that the bridge was out, and then chose to trust the gps anyway

Well yeah, in the article it says that visibility was bad. I was more just making the point that discretion is important when using a GPS. That said, I’d say that the local authorities fucked up the most. A bridge collapsed a decade ago and it’s not blocked off? It should be obvious that you can’t drive that way.

Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.

I agree entirely. The local authorities should clearly block off and indicate hazards like this.

If that person drives off a cliff because they trust a gps over their own eyes, then that’s fully their issue.

Given that there weren’t any signs or barriers, it sounds like the local authorities are the ones at fault here. It could even be that that didn’t file the proper paperwork to indicate that it collapsed. Google gets it’s information from some database and if their sources aren’t accurately reporting data as they should, google wouldn’t have any way of knowing that the bridge collapsed. Ultimately, hazards like this should be clearly blocked off. Google doesn’t have the power to do that.

The expectation of safety should be on the local authorities. Clearly marking that the bridge is unsafe to drive over with signs and blocking off the area. While google should have marked it as an inaccessible route, it’s the local authorities that should be looking out for the safety of drivers in that situation.

Why do you need a general online store? I’ll just buy from specialized retailers most of the time. It’s not really any extra effort.

If they insist on making shitty music and whining that they aren’t paid enough, that’s no one’s fault but their own.

No. It’s the fault of the greedy profit hungry streaming services. You can try to diminish the bands complaining by calling their music shitty but I regularly work with bands as an audio engineer and I can tell you without a doubt that many of the most talented musicians I’ve worked with need to make music as a side hustle because it doesn’t pay the bills.

The reality is that presence on streaming services is essential for growth as an artist in this day and age. Youtube isn’t going to to cut it. People are allowed to complain that a system is exploitative. You’re also ignoring the fact that even though streaming services pay peanuts, peanuts are better than nothing. Taking music off of streaming services deprives you of the miniscule income you get from it and deprives you of the publicity you get. The only way to get a following is to be on as many of the major platforms as possible. I’m not sure why that’s so difficult to understand. More people listening means more people potentially buying tickets or merch which is where the real money is.

Edit:

These artists are no more entitled to money than I am for doing my job.

This also might be one of the most stupid things I’ve read. Everyone is entitled to fair compensation for their work. You are, musicians are, everyone is.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. What you’re saying is basically a “you criticize society yet you live in it” argument. The artists that you perceive as doing fine are the ones making money off of ticket and merch sales. This is where Spotify as a marketing opportunity comes in. You need a following to sell tickets and merch. Basically your only option to garner a following is to put your music in the places where people consume it most.

No streaming platforms pay well. Are you saying that artists should pull out of all streaming services? How would new artists get their music to a general audience?

Yeah. While a service charge is annoying, when you eat in the US you already know that you’ll be adding on an extra 20% regardless. If you don’t have to leave a tip at the end, you’re paying the same amount that you would have with the tip.

Eh. Toxic work culture can drive people away regardless of the pay. Obviously some people suck it up but not everyone. Ultimately the goal is to treat employees well all around. Good pay, benefits, and work culture will keep people happy.

They want to optimize engagement so they give some users certain content and other users other content to see what works. Not sure what is that mindblowing about it. It’s how basically every website tests new features.