poor people have more babies than wealthy people (Elon excluded)

Make that "Elon's fertility doctor". Or maybe "the guy carrying the sperm sample". There's no honor among eugenicists, why would there be?

"You wholeheartedly disagree" with the facts. If your theory was right, that it was that we suddenly decided to culturally devalue motherhood (never mind the question of why we would suddenly do that, I guess it's some sort of conspiracy), then why is it a global phenomenon, as OP points out? Why did Koreans, Finns and Chileans suddenly decide to devalue motherhood and stop letting little girls play with dolls at the same time?

"Represent our culture" eh? What is our culture then, in your opinion? I don't see many people with this attitude join Morris dancing groups, to put it like that. Or string quartets. If you do any culture at all it's usually some bizarre caricature version of the past with viking metal music etc.
And that's the best case. Worst case, it seems like you think "our Western culture" is about breeding and dominating, and complaining that you can't recruit enough women to your breeding and dominating project. In that case, why would you care if only some very distant cousins of you do the breeding and dominating after you're gone? Your culture will go on.

Unless the complaining is an essential part of it?

One word: rent.

Your username is Pr0nbot. Dissing on "childish" pop culture, but maybe your "adult" culture is part of the problem too?

Stating the obvious, but people who think winning is more important democracy, are by definition antidemocratic themselves.

Capitalism is fine with government picking winners and losers, as long as capital picks the government.

Taking and equity stake is a bit more than picking winners and losers though. That's getting dangerously close to "seizing the means of production". Right now they're getting compensated, sure, but what do you think Trump is going to do when HIS quantum company underdelivers?

Demanding equity instead of giving out subsidies is one of the more sensible things he's done, actually. Probably because he imagines himself as king forever. Otherwise he'd just done as politicians before him, buy shares privately before pumping government money into it (though I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does that too, certainly his doge goons do).

Wouldn't it be ironic, Trump being the one bringing the means of production under state control.

Your content has been removed because you look too much like Mr. Beast. If you think this removal is in error, we recommend plastic surgery to remedy the issue. Or you can file an appeal, but honestly, with the effort needed to succeed with that route, plastic surgery is probably less painful.

That depends who was paying.

OK, now I respect the Chinese government's troll move.

I don't get it. What's your issue with Spotify that you imagine Amazon, of all companies, is better at?

Spotify pays poorly per play, but per play is a rotten metric.

Payout works the same (all subscription fees are pooled, then paid out according to total plays) so music services are "punished" according to the payout-pet-play metric for connecting people to the music they will listen heavily to.

The best services on on this metric, will be services which most subscribers don't even use - maybe because they don't even know they have it because they got it bundled with their cable TV etc. Obviously this is not sustainable or desirable.

I have sympathy for artists, and little for Spotify. But it's also artists who are primarily responsible for the authoritarian copyright mess we have today, from Sonny and Cher to Jean-Michel Jarre to Metallica. Not sure I like the revolutionaries more than the old regime. Especially when they push garbage metrics like payout per play, and their most usual solution boils down to "you should pay me, not all those others you listen to" or "you should listen to less music besides me".

That's right! Trump and his administration are certainly seeking control over media with more hamfisted, overtly threatening means.

But do you remember project jigsaw?

Back in the glory days, the government didn't have to threaten Google. They leapt at the opportunity to please them. They pretty much came to them asking, "where do you want your people installed?". In neoliberal philosopher Tim Snyder's terms, they certainly obeyed in advance. The aggressive punishment of people with even mild takes like "you should take the vaccine but we shouldn't force people to take vaccines" was probably not even government's idea, but the idea of small people eager to show which side they were on.

Are we better off now that the velvet glove is off? Not by much, honestly. But there's no way ahead where you don't come to terms with how damn bad the Biden-era responsible centrist consensus was.

No, communism isn't mentioned there either.