- cross-posted to:
- cross-posted to:
Politically-engaged Redditors tend to be more toxic – even in non-political subreddits::A new study links partisan activity on the Internet to widespread online toxicity, revealing that politically-engaged users exhibit uncivil behavior even in non-political discussions. The findings are based on an analysis of hundreds of millions of comments from over 6.3 million Reddit users.
Just saying things “as a test” is indistinguishable from defending it online. Things like body language, tone and intent do not come across as easily.
That being said toxic people exist everywhere on the internet it’s a flaw in our biology, we haven’t adapted to communicating this way yet.
That being said there’s a difference between a bad take like your above examples and condoning oppression and marginalization as some political groups have do.
One deserves to be defended vehemently.
Yes this is why it works as a test.
Only one of my statements is an opinion (I like a plug and play OS I don’t need to configure because I spend all my “customize” energy on my PC itself). The others are objective facts that make people sad.
This is what I mean by toxicity, and how I know for a fact the test will work
Testing people like that is not a great if your looking to dissect a viewpoint sounds more like being inflammatory, especially with your word choice.
Opinions can be bad takes. See > your examples.
I express exactly one opinion there, and it isn’t a “take” at all. “I don’t care for Linux” is not an inflammatory statement except to an absolute zealot.
Sorry guess I should have been more clear. All of your examples are opinions as in not demonstrably fact.
I don’t particularly mind any OS one way or the other I’ll use the best tool for the job. What I’m saying is a bad take are your proposed scenarios on piracy and ads which there’s no evidence to support, in fact there’s a lot to the opposite.
This would make what you said an opinion and by my point of view a “bad take”. Does that make you wrong to express them? No and I never said as much.
So I guess I just lost the thread on your point because all of those are just opinions. I was just using a colloquialism. Which brings me back to my point that usually when I see people get heated it’s because people are being bigoted.
Two of my 3 examples are not opinions lol. Ads do keep YouTube free. Piracy is theft. Those are facts. You can justify your blocking or ads or piracy however you want but that is not an argument against these facts.
But we’re getting into the weeds since the point is the insanity with which people respond, so frequently, and not the disagreement itself.
LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER: youtube reports it annually earns ~14.07 B from ad revenue and over 20B from subscriptions across youtube and youtube music. You are guessing and passing it off as “fact, not opinion”. Ads make youtube almost half as much as the ungodly amount of money they make, and google as a whole could support youtube without ads just fine, they would just make less money (Google’s throughput is extremely negative, most of their money is not put back into the company).
Your perspective sucks and your opinions are based on misinformation and guesswork.
Imagine using as your argument “no only half of their money comes from ads,” lol
Dude a company can’t just lose half their revenue. Be serious.
Still isn’t the legal definition of theft. It can morally be in your opinion