Again, just because it's common doesn't mean they aren't assholes for doing it. They're intentionally gaming the system for their own benefit. They did not need to sign an agreement with a company that would add the unit to the public network. That was a choice that they made, knowing they wouldn't want it to actually be public. I get that it can be normalized, but it doesn't absolve them.

They partnered with a company that puts them in their public network. If they didn't want to be part of that public network, they should have gone elsewhere. They knew what they were getting into when they signed on.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't consider a random car dealership the equivalent of Disney World. Even then, Disney World is only like a 2x markup.

That's just more of a defense for this guy, if anything. I would expect a markup over the going rates, but their $5/kWh is over 20x higher.

I commented on you else where, but this just adds to it. That makes your employer an asshole as well. If their charger is listed on a public network, that means it's intended for public access.

They willingly signed up to be part of a public network, it's on them for choosing to do so. They're absolutely assholes.

*more than adequate.

Sure, I don't think anyone needs to spend $500 on a toothbrush of any kind for consumer use. As for electric toothbrushes, I don't think everyone needs one. I do, however, think the ~$50 range is more then adequate to ensure a better quality brushing for those that struggle. The higher cost of replacements is offset by the reduction in dental problems.

Is that supposed to be different from the current state of things? I'm not saying people should but this, but there are people that would likely benefit from it.

I agree on the elitism part, but you very much did in fact tell people what to eat.

I don't agree 100%, but in general we should reduce our meat consumption.

In this instance, the ToS already says they have the right to use the content. By adding the toggle, they're at least superficially restricting their own license to the content. That means they either implemented this toggle for the purpose of lying, or to keep streamers from leaving over AI. I'm not ruling out lying, but given the amount of backlash over it even being opt-out it seems plausible that that it was added to keep their "product" happy.

You could say the same about streamers paying Twitch to host them on the platform. If you're not paying for it, you're trading something for it. In this case, they give twitch a license to use the content.

I want to preface that I don't agree with how they implemented the toggle. However, as others have noted, it's not that straight forward. First, the terms of service have long given them the right to do things like this. Adding a toggle at all is a consideration, though I think a self-serving one. The controversy over AI is enough that not having an option would alienate streamers, likely more than currently.

As for suggesting they pay the streamers, you could argue things in reverse as well. The streamers are being hosted by Twitch, and not paying for it. Much like ads, this would be a form of compensation to Twitch for providing the platform. It's just an optional one.

I'm not entirely against ads, but the race to the bottom screwed it all up. You have to stack pages with them to earn anything meaningful. The ones that pay the best are the least desirable. If it was practical to force all ads into a relatively palatable structure, adblockers wouldn't be needed. I get that some people would still want to use them. I'm just saying they wouldn't be all but required.

And how does that stop the advertising to the AI, as is being discussed here?