net00

Yeah, Google pays other companies lots of money to have its search engine enabled by default. That's what the lawsuit argued, so I'm not sure how separating chrome from the company will change that...

I use a self-hosted invidious instance, and despite the recent issues with Google trying to block them mine works behind Mullvad VPN.

I use the web app on desktop, and Yattee client on my phone/ipad

Ads can't federate

Never underestimate facebooks capacity to enshittify. If they want to send ads as posts they will make a way. In principle the fediverse should oppose for-profit-line-go-up fuckheads, it's always the same bullshit.

I'm sure he's taking full responsibility going to sleep in his mansion tonight, with his big salary and bonuses, which will probably see a nice bump from this.

I have already looked up most of what you recommended, and I arrived at the same initial conclusion...

• OpenRGB doesn't list support for my Gigabyte mobo, or XPG ram (unless I'm reading this wrong). I need this to stop the default behavior which is rainbow puke
• AMD adrenalin only lists 3 distros, and none of which I'd like to use (I'd prefer linux mint LMDE)
• Plus I haven't even talked about the apps (office for starters, then itunes+icloud which I use to sideload apps)

Linux doesn't have several programs I use to control my peripherals, the mobo RGB profile, and GPU fan control from Sapphire. It also doesn't have a proper AMD adrenalin as far as I've checked, nor firmware updater for SSD/NVME, and the list goes on and on. I also heard controlling high refresh rate displays on linux is a nightmare.

If I want to use the gaming PC I built to its full potential then I need windows...

The article is still dumb though, anyone left behind using old hardware should not go through the pain of forcing win11 to run. They all should switch to linux

Imagine using a google service. Do yourselves a favor and use anything else, even outlook, over Google.

No one is forced to use youtube in the same sense no one is forced to use a smartphone.

In the real world you'll eventually have to use those things to participate in society, just by the sheer reach those things have in our daily lives.

Just look back into any time a friend or family shared a link, or it was embedded in an article, or a company made an announcement only in youtube, or if you're in school and you were asked to view some lesson, or those college lectures that get uploaded to youtube.

I can get more examples, the thing is you'll need to click a youtube link at some point. Is it ok for us to deal with an enshittified platform? should we act like a luddite because we don't agree with the TOS? is this fair for us?

My current usage of youtube doesn't involve following creators, for that I use odysee/twitch. But the point remains, its morally correct to block ads, the platform is unfairly dominant.

Easier said than done when you talk about the global video sharing platform that is used everywhere by everyone...

It's like telling someone to just ditch their smartphone... not practically doable. Blocking ads is morally correct when you are forced to use it.