TugOfWarCrimes

No. They would rather effective age verification that doesn't negatively impact the privacy and liberties of their users. They want a solution, not just a ham fisted excuse to start building the foundations of a social credit system

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

-Gandalf the Grey / J R R Tolkein

Saying that out loud is the quickest way to curse yourself to be adopted by the most chaotic till fur gremlin imaginable.

The problem is that a version of this advice can be very helpful. As someone who has suffered from ongoing mental health issues and also work in an industry where I regularly support people with mental health issues, one piece of advice I often give is to identify what traumas are you unnecessarily holding on to, which are contributing to your depression/anxiety etc.

When you can let go of some of the more mundane stresses in your life, you have more energy to tackle the real issues you're facing. Of course this is much easier said than done and has to be used as part of a more wholeistic approach, but sometimes the advice to just learn to let it go is very good advice.

Unfortunately, many people don't understand that intricacy and so just repeat the surface level comment which is far from helpful. And this in turn also leads to a push back in the other direction where people who could genuinely benefit from letting go of some of their stress refuse to do so because they have spent so long being told that's all there is to it.

All three corporations involved are scumbags trying to game the broken legal system to profit at the expense of the consumer. None of them deserve your support. You should be able to buy what you want and emjoy, in a manner that's convenient for you, at a reasonable price, without having to navigate a labyrinth of corporate deals and user agreements.

There's heaps of psychology research into therapeutic approaches and all that stuff out there if you're willing to essentially do a degree on the topic, but personally I like to keep things as simple as possible so anyone can start applying it straight away.

I usually start with the picture story book The Huge Bag of Worries by Virginia Ironside (there's a read along of it on youtube) to frame the conversation. It helps to set up the idea that the "worries" are real and are having an effect on the individual. Also that many people struggle to know how to deal with them and end up giving bad advice, often because they are carrying their own bag of worries. I also at this point remind them that we are unlikely to get rid off all the problems, eg I can't cure your depression or rebuild your brain to make it neuro-typical, but we can make it so they are the only things in your bag making it a lot easier to carry.

Then I'll talk about a Catastrophe Scale. This is where we take a worry and rank it on a scale out of 10 of how bad is it really. 1 is a minor problem that will go away on it's own, and 10 is an extreme issue that will have a permanent impact on your life. Like in the book, many problems stop being an issue once you realize they are only a 1 or 2 on the scale. This is the "just get over it" point. Other's need some attention but can easily be solved or passed on to someone else in your support network to handle, but once you've spent that small amount of energy, it's gone. This is the where we see the value of another piece of despised advice, "stop worrying and just do it" or "have you tried going for a walk outside today". Once again, often spouted advice by people who think of it as the only thing needed without understanding how it fits into a complete treatment plan.

Finally that just leaves the real problems, the ones that are less easy to deal with. But without having to carry the weight of the whole bag of worries, we now have a capacity to take those worries to therapy or a doctor to medicate etc, and just generally do the more difficult and complex work that's needed.

I agree about not using it just to disagree with an opinion, but I do think the ability to downvote is very important. It just needs to be clear that it's supposed to be used to reduce the impact of stuff this is either harmful or just distracts from the conversation.

If I'm in a thread talking about what the best flavor of milkshake is, I will absolutely upvote someone claiming that chocolate is the best even though they are "objectively" wrong. They are however engaging with the conversation. On the other hand, someone who comes in saying that they hate milkshakes and prefer lemonade, while they're not exactly wrong in having that opinion, it would be worthy of a downvote because they're in the wrong place for that comment.

And then there's the bots/people that if they lost the ability to ever talk again, the world would be a better place. Never feel sorry for downvoting them.

I once worked with a guy who did the opposite of this. He just randomly mentioned that he had a twin brother one day, which no-one believed given how long we had all known him. But he persisted by casually talking about him in regular conversation. Nothing overly noticeable, just enough to plant the idea in people's mind that he did indeed have a twin brother. Around the same time he started growing his beard out and really made it his personality for several months to be the guy with a beard. It all came together one day, he finished his shift around lunch time and left like usual with his glorious beard. Unbeknownst all but a select few of us, he hadn't actually left. He left the store and drove his car around the corner to the other car park then used the sink in a nearby public toilet to completely shave his beard off and changed his clothes. Then he just walked in through the front door, introduced himself as the name he had been using for his fake twin brother and asked if his brother was there. He always had a reputation as a joker, but I don't think any of us truly believed anything he said after that. Not that he cared. It still cracked him up years later when folks were telling the tale to the newbies.

I've personally been replaying Chrono Trigger recently on PC using Reshade with the CRT-Royale settings for exactly this reason.

Of course there's also a setting in most emulators to do the same thing.

I know the feeling. I payed for a new computer with specs higher than needed for any new release game at full settings, and yet the main game I have played on it so far was built for Windows 3 and is best played in a web browser.

Not me personally but related. American Truck Simulator has started displaying in-game billboards for an irl truck driving recruiter.

I'm usually pretty strongly against in game advertisements, but this one just kind of makes sense to me.

I've been thinking the same thing. While I like the idea that publishers are responsible for maintaining the needed infrastructure, I can only see that resulting in even more predatory pricing to cover the costs and unreasonable pressure on smaller publishers leading them to fold and leave behind the greedy ones

It will be interesting to see how the existence or lack of a downvote option affects communities over time. There's some interesting arguments to be made both for and against. And now we actually have a way to easily test and compare between comparable communities on different instances.

At least paper can be produced through sustainable farming practices and any waste is almost entirely biodegradable.

But I do agree that the debate sucks. What we should really be doing is forcing corporations and governments to 1. Adhere to very strict sustainability levels and 2. Pay for clean up efforts out of the salaries of their board of directors. Any corporation that declares a profit or gives a bonus to someone in managment without meating their sustainability requirements results in large fines for the company as well as every individual member of the board of directors. And anyone who claims they can't pay within 12 months is given jail time and stripped of all assets instead.

Sounds harsh, sure. But till we start holding them accountable, it's not going to matter how many people are using reusable plastic shopping bags or soggy paper straws. It's not going to make any difference