Oh man, you got me. And I used to do that exact prank!
Have you clicked on any unfamiliar wi-fi networks lately?
Well thanks, but to be fair, I was asking Scrubbles. When it comes to an opinion I disagree with, it's more fruitful to talk to the person who holds that opinion than it is to deride the opinion with someone else who already agrees with me. Partially because there's a good chance of a misunderstanding.
Not to say the rest of your remark is invalid, just addressing the first sentence where you seem to be speaking on Scrubbles' behalf.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that churches are worse than house-hoarding landlords, just because they think they're doing good but a lot of them don't? Even the 18% of churches that rent their buildings from other churches^[1]^ (or the ones that rent non-church properties like theaters or schools,) and thus almost certainly don't even have a property they could give? Or what about the 48% of churches that run or support a food pantry^[2]^, and are thus doing good?
[1] - https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2018/fall-state-of-church-ministry/two-churches-one-roof.html
[2] - https://theconversation.com/nearly-half-of-all-churches-and-other-faith-institutions-help-people-get-enough-to-eat-170074
You conflate Christianity with Republicanism. Please do not act like churches are the mastermind behind politicians who use vaguely church-scented branding to try to pander to Christians while acting against many of the principles laid out in the Bible.
Well it can't be exclusively caused by red states, but I see what you mean. I'm just not a fan of the implication that churches have something to do with it.
I do not understand these downvotes. Like how dare you see churches that actually help the poor like they're supposed to?
That being said, it does seem that its the areas with lots of churches that create the conditions for homelessness
Huh? Is this like a red state/blue state thing, or do you have something to indicate that towns with more churches generate more homeless? It doesn't really make sense to me because homelessness is tied to housing prices, and cities are where housing is more expensive, and the ratio of church to population is probably a lot lower in cities.
Maybe they're post-slavery plantations? They gotta grow plants somewhere, plantations don't stop being a thing because slavery stopped.
I suspect, with almost 0 evidence, that the reason clickbait seems so effective is that there's a large contingent of viewers that it works on. So when you try playing the game, you'll see a surge in popularity. But such easily-won viewers are also easily lost if you don't play the game well enough, or someone else does it better. So if you want to keep your numbers up, you have to play the game hard, but doing that can drive away the loyal viewers that would seek out your videos even if the algorithm stopped promoting them. You can't measure your success through metrics alone.
In a way, if you play the game how YouTube wants you to play it (which is of course what makes them the most money,) you stop being an artist using YouTube as your platform and start being a worker for YouTube instead.
DeArrow has improved my YouTube experience. I still switch it off for some channels I like (such as SiIvaGunner, for reasons that are obvious if you watch them.) It's best when it has crowdsourced titles, which have actually made some videos more intriguing.
I saw a video thumbnail the other day that would normally be titled "Why Minecraft players built a real life supercomputer", which is way too vague for me to be interested, but the crowdsourced title was "Minecrafters created a distributed computation network to find the tallest cactus," and that made me very curious. I still didn't click it because it was a 23 minute video, though.
I'm also very grateful I don't have to see a lot of clickbait thumbnails. Some of them actively deter me from videos that might otherwise be interesting.
What, like Mr. Rogers?