Alternative take: Piracy is, at worst, morally neutral, and does not have a significant adverse effect on the profits of the people who produce media.
Metaright
joined 2 years ago
I think you misunderstand the original author's point.
Maybe, though that would be odd for a personal finance magazine.
That must have been devastating. I'm sorry to hear that.
Is this supposed to be suggestive? I don't understand.
I am 26 and have been in the workforce for a few years.
In short, is there something I’m missing here, or is work-eat-sleep-repeat all there is until I retire?
Yes, except for the fact that you and I will not be able to retire.
I wish companies would stop with subscription models.
I'm just going to keep calling it Twitter, and I'm honestly unsure of why everyone else, media outlets included, aren't doing the same.
If Reddit had been any indication, the debate around Roiland's culpability seems to polarize around the idea that since the charges were dropped he evidently must not have been guilty, and the idea that even though the charges were dropped, we have, through sheer coincidence, just now decided that his various past behaviors warrant immediate cancellation anyway (and that he's totally guilty no matter what, either way).
I feel like the justice system needs to evolve in a way that protects people against social ostracism of this sort, should they turn out innocent. Even if Roiland himself is truly guilty, the fact that we live in a system where someone else who is innocent could feasibly end up in similar circumstances is unacceptable in a society as connected as ours.
Freakin' scabs.