• 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Killing animals for pleasure.

    Edit: I love how the voting discrepancy here shows the hypocrisy lol

  • chameleon@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    Requiring agreement to some unspecified ever-changing terms of service in order to use the product you just bought, especially when use of such products is required in the modern world. Google and Apple in particular are more or less able to trivially deny any non-technical person access to smartphones and many things associated with them like access to mobile banking. Microsoft is heading that way with Windows requiring MS accounts, too, though they’re not completely there yet.

    • metaStatic@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      We only really run into trouble when we start treating corporations like people and copyright as a commodity in it’s own right.

      Non-transferable copyright for the life of the author would be perfectly acceptable.

      • KⒶMⒶLⒶ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        the statute of Anne was the first copyright law and it was written to stop printers in London from breaking each others’ knees over who was allowed to print the world of Shakespeare who was already long dead.

        copyright is a bill of goods when packaged as a protection for creatives.

  • nicerdicer@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    Social- and greenwashing proposals.

    “By buying [unnecessary product] you will help [marginalized group] to gain a livable income and also send their kids to school instead of sending them to [work place with - even for adults - horrible work conditions]. Also, when buying [product] we will save [arbirtary area] of [rainforest/ coral reef/ mangrove swamp] that would otherwise have been destroyed [but not by us]. Additional to that, your purchase helped us to save [arbitrary ammount of CO2 - at least in a completely hypothetical scenario]. While using [product] you will make the world a better place.”

    As a customer there is barely any way you can ensure or check that these things are true. It cannot be possible to save the enviroment while buying stupid products like, for example, internet-of-shit-devices which will be phased out in no time or single use products made from plastic or other harmful materials that are not recycleable.

    All these claims are just an indulgance trade - like it is done for centuries in a religious context. It is just that you have an excuse to consume more, because they to something to help people/ enviroment. If there was a product that would have been advertised as: “Well, we irretrieveably destroyed 100 km2 of nature, and for each single product in average two workers died and at end-of-life this product will fuck up the environment once more - also it will impair your health just by existing”, it would be horrible - but at least it would be honest.

  • shapesandstuff@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Private cars in cities.
    They’re noisy, unhealthy, cause massive damage to infrastructure, transport one person at a time while taking up enough space for ~10 in the road, fill open spaces for parking, sometimes while being completely unusable, endanger everyone else on the roads…

  • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Honestly? Alcohol. I used to work security at a rehab, and it was always the worst addiction. The withdrawls are horrible, up to and including death. Yes, even worse than heroin.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Read up on US prohibition and how it funded the Mafia. It just changes the form of the societal disease.

      The answer to addiction is having support and care on place for those that fall to it so society helps pick them up again. You can’t stop the abuse of substances unless you fix why people are crawling into a hole to avoid the world. Lack of mental health is a disease of society as well as the individual.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn’t disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn’t the first or the biggest example.

        Like you said, you can’t people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.

      • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why? Simply because this was actually tried in America? All I’m doing is answering the question. Just because this country failed at making it illegal does not mean it still shouldn’t be illegal.

        • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          People are allowed to make their own decisions, even if they’re bad decisions. And it shouldn’t be illegal because it has been proven that making it illegal only makes everything worse.

  • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    non-consensual advertising (consensual being things like steam discovery queue, where I actively want to be advertised to), “lobbying” (bribing), fossil fuels and friends, gerrymandering (US), the electoral college (US), publically trading your company

    • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Most advertising is non-consensual, but I’m still whole-heartedly in agreement. One could argue that ads that are shown to a person consuming media without paying (podcasts, YouTube, etc), are kinda consensual.