I'm just replying to the notion of that the critique has a undertone of fascist feeling. The comment is somehow anchored in that any critique of modern movies is reactionary and does not have any merit of its own. What I'm trying to convey is that there is a difference between critique that is somewhat nostalgic and it would be different if the critique was ideological. I don't find much ideological bias in "the critical drinker" videos more of nostalgic bias.
He literally starts by saying that these modern films are creating "a generation of shit people" and as proof asks you to log into TikTok and flashes up a clip of a young woman.
Why is this person 'shit'? I have no idea. Why is this whole generation 'shit'? Especially compared with a slightly older male Youtuber talking about Mulan, which many impartial observers would place in broadly the same class of pointless internet celeb.
If I wanted to briefly indicate the problems of this (or any other) generation, I could think of better things to flash up than a girl talking on TikTok, but apparently this wholesome nostalgia for the movies of his youth requires him to do this and say those things. And you didn't even notice this?
I never claimed that it was 'wholesome' that is something you filled in. I'm pointing out that the your analysis is flawed that you are trying to pin ideological label on a "scottish alcoholic" and conflating that somehow the youtube algorithm is fueling a 'fascist feeling'. The truth is that all of these algorithm are maximising for engagement and the signal that it is latching onto here isn't fascism it is nostalgia. Is this persona being 'wholesome' and 'kind' in his speech? And the answer is no!
Fascism uses the nostalgic feeling specifically around national mythos and the character of its citizens but it is the nostalgia that comes first and the demogogs latch onto that feeling. And I fail to see how the The Critical Drinker would constitute a fascist demagogue although he is not wholesome in anyway.
Yes but my point isn't about this content in particular. My reply was a little
facetious.
> Is the Youtube algorithm directing people to make vaguely fascist feeling, "bring back the good old days", 'kids today', 'civilization is doomed' content aimed at young males? Or is that just a natural cycle that repeats throughout history?
The Youtube algorithm only cares about you watching as many videos as possible. You are not watching it optimize for complex ideology like fascism but to the nostalgic feelings. It drives conspiracy rabbit holes like flat-earthers because the algorithm doesn't care that the earth is round it cares that you watch as many minutes as possible so they can continue presenting ads. If you are curious about Modern Monetary Theory it doesn't care that it recommends after a bunch of next videos an anti-semitic conspiracy theory about the Rotschild banker family a straight up neo-nazi. Just so they can keep you watching and getting ads along the line. And you can't teach the algorithm to avoid complex mechanism like how people succumb to conspiracies or fascism... and in some cases both...
It's amazing that Sea Monkey, Palemoon, and all the other forks which support XUL have managed to do so securely with incomparibly smaller teams. Multiple proofs of the falsehood of your claims already exist.
Mozilla got rid of XUL because it wouldn't work with the multi-process model of Chrome they were copying in order to speed up the browser for running complex javascript applications. The security justifications were nonsense. The real security problems are in supporting all the new attack surfaces that modern browsers do in the form of exposing bare metal (or just above) functionality for acting as an OS (webgl, websockets, etc) instead of a browser.
He doesn't pfft anything, that much is clear from the very first 2 paragraphs. Also this is from 2019, before M1. Next time, at least read a bit of the article.
AdBlock Plus seems to whitelist your ads if you pay them millions [1][2]. The euphemism ABP (and their parent company Eyeo) uses is 'acceptable ads'. Acceptable to Eyeo I guess. It's opt-out at the users end.
OP knows all about this [3][4].
I'm not a fan of some of Mozilla's policies but I'm thankful if it's true that Ublock Origin is shown preference over the shady, user-disrespecting ABP.
I can't say much about recent years, given how I've left quite a while ago. But I do want to point out that ABP was always surprisingly upfront about Acceptable Ads (only users who cannot read could possibly miss it, it's prominent on every step of the funnel). And even though that may be hard to believe, they do take the criteria very seriously last time I checked, even doing a ton of user research, which surprisingly (to me) yielded back then that a lot of users feel bad about blocking all ads unconditionally and mostly care about not having stuff jump at them.
The only possibly shady thing you point out is that it's opt out, I get that. Especially people who want to block everything unconditionally might feel cheated because it's not called Adblock Minus.
What Mozilla did here, OTOH, I find shady because they're pretending to run an impartial addon store, when in practice some guy who wants to promote a specific extension (maybe that person feels like you, maybe he's a friend of gorhill - I have no way of knowing) can pull these kind of tricks.
But I suppose it's a case for Hanlon's Razor: They probably just don't have their stuff together about running any type of store the way the big guys do.
I'm still a proud Mozillian, I can find one thing they do shady without finding all of Mozilla shady, I realise it didn't sound like that above.
The thinking is that when something says it's an adblocker, it has one job - blocking ads. ABP doesn't do that, hiding behind the euphemism 'acceptable ads'. It would be ok if they promote it as a 'selective blocker' instead of 'adblocker'. It would also be ok if they say adblocker and the acc. ads thingy is opt-in. If Mozilla did something to highlight something that had one job to do and did it, I'm thankful.
P.S: Ublock Origin is not just an adblocker. It can block various types of content.
If there was a whitelist toggle in the funnel clearly labeled "No, I installed an adblocker to block ads, not to be shown the ads your protection racket is paid to deliver" then it would be all cool.
If the video was titled 'Why I love these old films', then your reply makes sense.