Comment

Comment on Youtube has fully blocked Invidious

Source for what?

This:

They’re enshittifying so much, so fast, and eventually there will be a tipping point.

or this:

Every little bit of that network that they carve off while they’re enshittifying brings them closer to the critical point where people can afford to ditch them.

or this:

The logic that they can “afford” to lose marketshare is exactly what will make them keep losing it until people migrate en masse and they lose all of their marketshare.

And youtube is enshittifying.

Yes, you’ve said that several times.

These are both well-established effects.

The fact that it exists is not evidence that it’s taking place here.

My sourcing is finished now.

LOL no.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Oh so you want sources for literally every tiny claim with no evidence that you’ve engaged at all, but you’re sticking with “pure speculation” for your claims and you’re fine with that? Just checking.

source
- helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  Oh so you want sources for literally every tiny claim
  
  Bruh. You were the one asking for sources…
  
  source
  - Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    That’s not how that works. I told you the point I had a problem with and wanted sourced, and you admitted it was pure speculation.
    
    If you are skeptical about anything specific I’m saying, you can ask for the same thing. You didn’t, you just said I hadn’t sourced anything, which wasn’t true, I gave you links so you could educate yourself, and since you’re wtill confused on what any of it means, apparently you didn’t do that. When I asked you what you wanted specifically sourced, you named everything, which is as pointless as naming nothing.
    
    This is presumably because you don’t actually care about sources, you were just embarrassed that you had to admit it was pure speculation and you wanted to project that back at me.
    
    If you’re actually curious to understand what I’m saying, you can ask a specific question, but you’re not doing that. If you’re just going to keep insisting that I’m pulling things out of my arse, you’re wrong, but I won’t keep replying.
    
    source
    helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    That’s not how that works.
    
    LOL What? That’s exactly how that works.
    
    you admitted it was pure speculation.
    
    Right. The question is why you can’t do the same.
    
    If you are skeptical about anything specific I’m saying, you can ask for the same thing.
    
    I already did.
    
    you just said I hadn’t sourced anything, which wasn’t true, I gave you links so you could educate yourself
    
    You linked to a general concept, and absolutely nothing about how that concept applies to the topic at hand.
    
    When I asked you what you wanted specifically sourced, you named everything, which is as pointless as naming nothing.
    
    LOL why won’t you just admit you don’t have any sources? This is so ridiculous. It’s okay.
    
    you were just embarrassed that you had to admit it was pure speculation
    
    If I was embarrassed I wouldn’t have admitted it at all. I probably would have accused you of not providing sources while sourcing random things I read about on Wikipedia while refusing any hint as to how they relate to the current conversation or back up my statements.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments