My 2 cents: it’s is great when travelling but I end up visiting the website of the bus/train company to actually book the ticket, so it’s mainly useful if you are somewhere and you don’t know the companies offering public transport.

Edit: I’m from Europe and never went outside of it, don’t know anything of how good it works in the rest of the world.

Better to say some things once too often than the other way around though 😂

iPhone Voicemail Transcriptions aren’t always accurate… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdhC6xTbwTs

Cue the taxicat: https://lemm.ee/post/60843451

Replace sailor with user and you’re spot on. Instead of selling intimacy we sell our attention in exchange for content.

If a product wouldn’t sell if it isn’t heavily marketed I’d agree it doesn’t need to exist. But if a product is paid for by advertising other products, that is a different story. Newspapers have had advertising for ages because of the high cost of running a newspaper, many tv-channels wouldn’t be able to exist on a subscription basis. Same goes for a lot of websites online. Also no more free porn (not legally at least). Advertising pays for a lot of things in our society. I’m not saying this is a good thing, but this system cannot be changed overnight.

Another part of the problem I haven’t read in the comments is all the companies that rely on advertising to exist, especially media companies. Many newspapers, magazines, websites, TV channels etc would go bankrupt if they couldn’t earn money with advertising. There is a simple solution because we can ‘just pay them’ but I’m afraid we won’t. People hate advertising (someone commented “advertising is violence”, that really says it all), but still many of us choose to not get the subscription but use the ‘free’ option instead.

I’m not against banning all advertising, but I think working towards more peaceful advertising might be fruitful. Banning advertising of tabacco products and having disclaimers when financial and medical products show this can be done.

“advertising is violence” says so much about how we (the world) allow companies to behave.

I agree, as in many more cases it is better to regulate than it is to forbid. Companies and consumers will find a way.

You can and should make the distinction between being paid to advertise something and sharing information based on your believes. There is such a thing as free marketing and I agree you cannot ban that, but you can ban paid advertising in a similar way as paid sex is banned in many places across the world.

The article is about paid advertising. Paying someone to spread your opinion is in my eyes very different than telling someone about your opinion and trying to persuade that person to agree with you.

I’m not saying don’t blame the hijackers, I’m saying blame the hijackers for the hijacking (which in turn killed thousands) and blame Bin Laden for planning it and getting those hijackers to do the hijacking. They’re both guilty, but without Bin Laden ordering 9/11 those hijackers wouldn’t have done it. I’m not saying they wouldn’t have something else bad. I’m not saying they’re innocent. But Bin Laden did something worse than those individual hijackers.

Thanks, for your summary. I think he’s right about different kinds of guilt being judged in different ways. If someone commits a crime and gets away with it, that doesn’t mean that person will never feel the guilt. It sounds like a good read.

No, by that logic you can’t blame the dealers landlord because they were just trying to make some money.

But not every soldiers’ first priority are justifying their actions. Please note that the title of this post is insinuating that all veterans are to blame, not some or even the majority of them. Also note the title omits the bosses, the people who gave the orders.That is why I replied. We would only disagree if you’d believe the boss isn’t guilty because he didn’t do the execution of his plans.

I fully agree.

I’m saying we shouldn’t blame the soldiers on the choices of their leaders, I’m not saying we shouldn’t blame the soldiers for their own choice. I totally agree they could’ve chosen to not to follow orders. I’m not saying they are innocent. But their role is not comparable to the role of the people giving orders.

O i totally agree, this is exactly why i started with ‘this is might get a lot of downvotes’. But the crimes on the pictures where not crimes by individual soldiers. These things were done by individuals who were told to. I’m not saying that makes them innocent, I’m saying they weren’t the most guilty. The most guilty in my opinion are the men who scheme and think up of plans like this, and then order others to execute it.

Never heard of this, thanks

No that would be saying they didn’t do anything bad because doing what is asked of you is always good.