I disagree with this idea. The current model (generally free content that is supported by advertisers) is not the only model that can exist. Yes the Internet would be vastly different if there were no ad revenue. But the Internet existed without ads before, and certainly could do so again. Services like Meta/X couldn't exist in that market, but would that be so bad?
The only sales book I've ever read that presented a sales process I thought I could do and not throw up was "Let's Get Real or Let's Not Play". I strongly recommend it for someone doing exactly what you're doing.
I think one good reason is connecting with the youth. My kids are too young for Tik Tok but old enough to come home with 6-7 (btw, best antidote to that is the 7-8-9 joke ;) ) and "chicken banana", and I'm told this comes from Tik Tok. I grew up in a house where every BSOD was caused by the fact that we installed video games, and I'd rather not be that kind of parent to my own kids. I'm also like GP though, I'd rather not go full scrollhead, so it's a bit of a dilemma.
As a former child, I'm not sure I would have wanted the adults mimicking my behavior. Back then I loved the occasions where the adults and us kids got together, such as festivities, and I got to hear their stories. They were all interesting and serious people though, with interesting lives and jobs (I was born in the 1970s and many of the adults had experienced WWII, or, the parents, the hard years following it - I am [East] German). No strange opinions about science or politics.
I think that's similar to when politicians try to "be like the people". I think "normal people", and children, prefer that their "betters" are actually examples of something better.
Agree. Your role as a parent is probably to serve as an example to them—even of old-fashioned, crufty ways. (Surprised/not-surprised to find my kids are curious about film cameras, vinyl, audio cassettes, MUDs, BBS'es…)
It's not a question of mimicking, it is interesting what is current within the teenage/student community. Adult population runs out of steam at some point.
I don't see that happening. People have stuck with streaming and social networking as they've trended user-hostile. And with LLMs an even greater type of dependence is being cultivated.
It's almost like that idea where the first people to leave in generational star ships will arrive at their new home to find the people who left in the third or forth generation ships already there for some time, technology having advanced so much in that time.
By the time they get the cable to Singapore, it will just be cheaper to generate it in Singapore.
That is the cart before the horse. Families, and women specifically, need stability and reasonable guarantees that fewer babies will be more likely to survive before they will stop having 4.
No, it is definitely the cart after the horse - kindly check basic facts. The babies are surviving thanks to declining child mortality - population of regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa has grown from 434 million to ~1.3 billion in the last few decades.
Basically your assertion that "reasonable guarantees that fewer babies will be more likely to survive" is completely and utterly wrong. Desperate family planning is needed, but religion stands in the way. No amount of international aid will fix this fundamental problem.
Well I’m an atheist, but it’s undeniable that Christianity used to be the dominant moral police in the west and it no longer is. If you stop enforcing morality with shame then people don’t follow it as much. Which part of that is wrong?
Christian morality includes “don’t be selfish” as a high ranking rule.
Being selfish is against the religion, therefore selfish Christians are not implementing Christianity properly, or in other words they are being “bad Christians”.
I don’t think of morality as one thing, I’m not claiming Christians or well functioning Christians are “more moral” because that is a nonsensical framing. It would be like saying that frogs are “more animal” than goats. No, they are just different animals.
> Being selfish is against the religion, therefore selfish Christians are not implementing Christianity properly, or in other words they are being “bad Christians”.
So is a Christian also allowed to own a profitable business? Isn't that pretty selfish, instead of making only the minimum and using the rest to help the needy?
Or is a profitable business OK, but raising prices by more than inflation isn't?
Or can a Christian run a factory that dumps runoff straight into a river?
"Being selfish" is itself poorly defined. The Bible is not much use - when it's not contradicting itself, it's vague.
Christian morality is not one single thing, hence my "no true Scotsman" comment.
People who self identify as Christians these days violate a huge number of rules that didn’t used to be violated frequently when Christianity was dominant.
So yes, it could be the case that the flavor of selfishness we are discussing is on the border and would be debatable. But if the sort of people you are referring to are the same sort of people I’m thinking of, I don’t think most Christians from say 1850 would accept them as Christians. The social bar for calling oneself Christian in current year is practically nonexistent. This is different from no true Scotsman.
reply