https://youtu.be/zHbv2YQ6yF4

Good video covering the incident in detail

Thank you. That's about what I suspected. And an email may not technically be a paywall but imo if they're going to sell it or even just use it to spam me with shit that's just another form of payment. I could make a fake email address or something but honestly I'm not going to go through all of that for what seems like a clearly shitty article from that parts that I can see.

Paywall link + no context given as to what actually occurred other than someone claiming that they are being silenced. That very well may be true but without more context I can't make that determination. It may also well be true that the claims by the DoJ are true and that the narrator of this article is an unreliable narrator.

If you want me to think or feel a particular way then don't lock the article behind a paywall and give actual context so that I can come to my own conclusions.

That is one of the most disgusting websites I've ever seen. If you're reading this please don't click the link.

What you're referring to are legal classifications that prevent discrimination in very specific circumstances such as when applying for a job. When someone decides to make fun of vegans they absolutely DO NOT think to themselves "is that a legally protected class? No? Okay, I'm in the clear." This reasoning is blatantly incorrect.

If this were the actual reason then why do people also discriminate against groups that are protected classes like women? The answer is because we aren't in a court. We are talking about social values, not legal ones. Despite how much of a fucking asshole it would make someone to be misogynistic in their daily life there is nothing preventing them from doing so other than the fear of being outcast by their peers. It only becomes illegal in very specific circumstances.

"The researchers found that Sky was also reminiscent of other Hollywood stars, including Anne Hathaway and Keri Russell. The analysis of Sky often rated Hathaway and Russell as being even more similar to the AI than Johansson."

As someone that has used ad blockers for just about as long as I have been able to, I would like to think that this is true. However, I'm not entirely sure that it is. I've heard that a surprising percentage of people just don't even know that ad blockers exist. If that's the case then they may be very well aware of what is happening. (Using made up numbers for the sake of argument since I don't have real numbers) Like if only 5% of users use ad blockers and doubling the number of ads they show only brings that to 10% then it is certainly worth it financially. I doubt that if you were to graph that curve it would be linear - there is certainly a point where you inundate users with so many ads that even non-technical people will start learning about ad blockers. Regardless of what the real numbers are, I would be very surprised if they are making decisions this big without at least being aware of what those numbers might be. And if they can make a small amount of money indefinitely but they have evidence to suggest that they can make even more money also indefinitely then the financial motivation is obvious. Not all infinities are the same size.

Unfortunately that is simply not true. If you had to take a guess, how long does a chicken live that is born into the animal agriculture industry and what does its life look like? Go watch Dominion ( https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko ) and learn what modern animal agriculture looks like because I promise you it is not a life free of abuse where they are safer than they would be in the wild with plenty of food to eat. If you are paying for animal products then you are not only paying for the animal to be murdered but are also paying for the abuse that it suffered for its entire short life before that point.

Also I'd definitely argue that murder is a form of abuse. Defined as: "treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly." If you wanted to discuss semantics it would be more accurate to say that it is impossible to murder an animal since the most common definition would probably be "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". There is a second more loose definition though that uses the language "kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation". I would argue that an animal IS a "someone" as they are an individual with their own unique perception of the world. As such I do believe that it is possible to murder an animal. That being said, it is completely irrelevant to the morality of what is happening whether we call it murder or abuse or we come up with all new words to describe what's happening. No matter what you call it, we are creating unfathomable amounts of completely unnecessary suffering by forcefully breeding (aka raping) animals and forcing them to live unimaginably awful lives which are ended very very prematurely because money and yummy.

I agree that those people need to understand her point the most and that they likely won't even if they did hear it unedited but even the people who are already on her side like myself still need to hear it. Not because we don't already understand what she's saying but because it shows that we haven't given up yet.

I don't think she's really talking to them or expecting them to suddenly admit what they are doing and change their actions. I feel like she's moreso talking to the American people. I know personally it at least gives me a modicum of hope to see that there are still people who will stand up for what's right and call them out on the floor of Congress. It's certainly better than living in a world where no one challenges them anyway.

The only reason plant based meats haven't been way cheaper than animal meat the entire time is because of how heavily subsidized the animal agriculture industry is. Without the government literally single handedly propping up the industry it wouldn't be a viable way to make money.

It's interesting that they would choose to blur them if it's that sensitive considering blurring things isn't actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.

And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn't take long to do either.