Everyone knows that if you don't pay for a product then you are the product. But people tend to assume that companies can't or won't make you the product for devices in which you paid, especially "premium" devices. This is a very popular sentiment among Apple users despite the fact that there's nothing stopping a company from making money from both sides. And companies today are greedy enough to not give a fuck about the negative sentiment it generates among consumers.

Early 2000's. Numerous versions of MacOS before OS X somehow had worse stability than many Windows computers.

I think you're underestimating Microsoft's ability to fuck up almost everything they touch.

I used a Macbook Pro for 14 years and I saw exactly one crash. It happened within the first hour or two of use, but after updating the OS I never saw a crash again. Now Spinning Beach Balls of Death are a very different story. They weren't extremely common, but there were a couple of situations in which I could produce them consistently. In unexpected situations, there was a small chance of recovery if I waited for the action to time out or resolve, but most of the time it persisted indefinitely.

The situation in which it would put me reminds me of something I witnessed in high school. One of my classmates had big, bushy eyebrows and he showed up one Monday with a clean brow. Nobody would tell me who did it, but they were quick to say that the culprit only shaved one eyebrow, leaving him to decide if he wanted to walk around with a big, bushy brow on only one side or shave the other one off himself for symmetry. He chose the latter. In a lesser manner, that's how I would feel when I got the Spinning Beach Ball of Death - instead of crashing, it would leave me to decide how long I should wait before giving up and rebooting (shaving my other eyebrow).

If the missiles are that cheap, they can't power a Military Industrial Complex that operates as a conveyor belt to transfer tax money paid disproportionately by the poor into the accounts of corporate oligarchs. Think, China, think!

Republicans Before MAGA: Tyranny and government overreach are bad!
MAGA Republicans Now: If it's alright for China, it's alright for us - as long as our cult leader is the one in power

Money: the more you have, the more you need.

Why was this downmodded? It's seems completely accurate and relevant to me.

Thank you, U.S. government, for liberating me from the tyranny of choice!

I never said, nor implied, that it wasn't. That doesn't mean that we can't apply some social pressure to dissuade young, impressionable people from rushing into regrettable situations.

That's a strawman argument. I never even implied this behavior should be illegal because that is not at all what I believe. Instead, I'd like society to take a broad view of how it impacts individuals' choices and act accordingly. If people who promote this behavior have a harder time making and keeping friends due to their actions, that would be enough to dissuade many people from engaging in the behavior. Society can gently shape behavior without resorting to coercion via laws.

The ruthless selfishness of many billionaires and a certain POTUS are far more deserving of the term 'moral decay' than what goes on on OF

Perhaps, but they're certainly not mutually exclusive.

If you're looking for a saint, he probably ain't it.

I'm not looking for a saint. They're few in number, and although they're extremely impressive as individuals, the aggregate behavior of society has much more impact. OnlyFans convinced many young people who otherwise would not have produced adult content to do so and many of them go on to regret that.

He just seems better than several others.

This whole thread is rife with moral relativism.

The convenience of OnlyFans also contributed to encouraging many people to produce adult content who would not have otherwise considered doing so. And many of those people have gone on to regret it.

Compare his choices to Elon Musk's

That's moral relativism. If a person chooses to set the bar that low, then that's on them, but it doesn't exactly create a very impressive result.

And what is the blemish you refer to?

Being part of an entity that encourages people, most of whom are females who are barely adults in the eyes of the law, to permanently sell their dignity so that OnlyFans can get a piece of the profit.

Compared to other adult streaming sites, isn't OnlyFans MORE respectable and less a blemish? Isn't that the whole point, enabling individual creators control over their own content and profit?

More moral relativism. And it's still exploitative, it just changed the model of exploitation. The old model exploited a small number of people to a very large extent. The new model reduces the amount of exploitation but spreads it over a much larger population.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that OnlyFans was about reducing corporate exploitation of streaming models.

It was about increasing the equity of its founders and shareholders. It did that, in part, by marketing itself as being less exploitative than the alternatives as a means to that end.