Nothing. But Weinstein produced all his movies, and Weinstein makes money every time they stream. He owns the IP, not Smith. And more are in the works. All the while Smith is downplaying his association with the guy. That kind of thing happens all over. It's just people making opportunity out of catastrophe, a very time honored tradition in human society. The fact is Smith cares more about continuing to make his money playing the same character he has since the 90s - despite a sick, disgusting rapist profiting from it every time - shows just how out of touch with the way businesses and money works that most people are. When he goes on stage and calls Weinstein a rapist gargoyle and nods along with the crowd, keep all that in mind. He's still actively working to earn that gargoyle money because it earns Kevin Smith a lot of money as well.
We like to think we're the ones in touch with reality, but realities aren't mutually exclusive. When we say wealthy people live in a "different reality" we're not saying they live in something that isn't reality. It is. For them. Not us. And understanding that is key to empowering us to change those realities.
Tech startups of all kinds are being devalued the last 12 months. The tech sector was always heavily based in speculation and so as the markets recoil, the tech sector was going to feel it the hardest. People have been predicting that for years, literally.
The reddit devaluation falls in line with all that, not really the migration at all. Guys I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Fidelity's valuation experts don't give one shit about the happiness of the users, and only give half a shit about the number of them -- which, that number comes from reddit themselves on a "trust me bro" basis, like the user counts of any service. Let me even go one step further: the louder you complain about reddit, the more important you make reddit look, the more valuable you make reddit to investors. You have to re-frame your thinking when considering markets like this: users are not customers, they're products. "Look at the reaction of all those users" is what this migration boils down to, to those valuation experts.
On the exact same note you can bet on the rising popularity of any given celebrity by the number of their detractors. See a new starlet getting hated on by everyone on Twitter? They're going to sell more albums because of it. Every time.
Edit: Just like the trolls, your best bet to change the landscape of social media is to ignore the bad actors, including the social medias themselves. Don't engage with them and don't advertise for them by talking about them. Kbin's second largest magazine is RedditMigration. You're defining this place by the continued existence of reddit. Guys: Move. On. Let it die.
"Warnings about explicit content work" is a new take to me. The history of such direct warnings tells us otherwise. At one point there were bands dropping F-bombs on albums just to get that sticker. Because it increased their sales and visibility.
The Streisand Effect is real, in big ways and also in these small ones. I'm not saying don't try, but I'm telling you it won't ever work the way you think it will.
What's interesting is that the MPAA Rating system itself was a compromise from the industry with the government to avoid the government stepping in to control content. That's where it started. Seems eerily similar no? It's not coincidence. But that's just another example of the point I'm making too: originally they rated porn movies "X" and agreed these wouldn't be in the industry- controlled theaters. Porn movie producers took it as a badge and began labeling their movies "XXX" and leaned into it so hard, the MPAA had to change the distinction to something more innocuous, "NC-17." But the cats out of the bag, even today every 11 year old kid knows what XXX means. The warning became a siren call.
Warnings are just the Streisand Effect, so don't expect much of them.
They are absolutely no where close to a virtual monopoly. Anyone can upload and stream content online, and probably millions of websites allow it now, without exaggeration. What they have is a prefab audience. There are no considerations needed for free speech whatsoever.
If you want to influence their moderation habits, you need to be their customer or better yet, their shareholder. As just another leeching user, your voice means nothing to them and frankly that isn't problematic. 10,000 leeches won't influence them the same as one paying customer. I can guarantee that. And again, if you're just a leech then it really is no wonder why they wouldn't listen as a for-profit business.
There are troubling bits about lots of platforms and media outlets and companies, but that's not an excuse to twist up legal terminologies like monopoly or free speech in order to make weak criticisms. Doing so weakens the framework of law more than it does influence YouTube at all. Because that framework of law is only as valid as we use it. Countless examples of that problem abound - virtually the entirety of the Trump presidency is an example of why misuse of the law in common discussions among people is actually very dangerous. That's been a sticking point for me for a long time, and it's more important as years go by. So I'm gonna call it out, especially when it's happening on "my" team.
If you're gonna make accusations where we actually have legal recourse (like monopolies) then you need to understand them. There is no where close to a real monopoly in YouTube.
But it's silly crap like that that matters to advertisers. NSFW actually is the word "fuck", "asshole", etc. You might be able to say that at work, not everyone can without repercussion.
And that's not a stretch at all, it's why network television won't let you say either of those words either. Not next to their Ford and Samsung advertisements.
The entire premise of NSFW is silly to me. Like no one has an obligation to make sure YOU are safely browsing at work. Get back to work.
Still not free speech at all. You're pointing out the difference between being able to speak freely and being provided an audience. There are no nations in history or philosophers in humanity which supposed the existence of a human right to provide an audience to everyone.
But again, YouTube isn't a free speech platform. The public sidewalk is, YouTube isn't. They have no obligation to provide you anything at all.
Alcohol solvent can make this worse depending on the adhesive. It can just spread the stuff and thin it out. Someone else suggested oil, that's the ticket. Bit of olive oil on a rough cloth brings it right up. Wd40 was also suggested, same idea. You want it to move easily, not dissolve.