howrar

No, this doesn't work for me. I imagine myself standing in the middle of the road where the camera would be. If I look left and right and see these two cars, it means they're going in the same direction.

I don't understand what you mean here. I've already said my persuasive piece. If it convinces anyone to change their stance, then great. If not, then so be it. It is what it is. But I don't see any reason to go back and delete it just because I don't think anyone's going to be persuaded. That's extra work for no gains.

Do you not want to make the world a better place though? I'm assuming yes. How would it help to share misleading articles over another containing the exact same information but without being misleading?

If you're wealthy enough, you can. Otherwise, all your time is going to be spent working (not through producing art) to make ends meet and resting so you can do it all over again the next day.

Gotta stick your finger in there and find the center pull end.

lowest charisma

What? This guy has one of the strongest cult followings of any human being I've ever heard of. How is that low charisma?

It's not a perfect analogy because no one is paid to eat ice cream. People do get paid to produce art, and that allows a lot of people to pursue their passion while still being able to house and feed themselves. Automating art and making it cheaper than humans means they would no longer be able to do that. We've automated away jobs that people actually enjoy doing. It's not banning per se, but it greatly reduces how much time people can spend on it.

I never argued against the facts being reported. They are indeed important and should be included. What I'm criticizing is the way it's being presented.

I'm not arguing against offending people either. Offend all you want (tbh I've never understood what it even means to be offended, but that's besides the point). What I'm against is manipulating the minds of those you call "sheeps". The ones who don't read past headlines and still form strong opinions from them. Opinions that translate to actions and have negative consequences on other people. Blocking you isn't going to change any of that. Besides, I enjoy the exercise.

Writing to the editors isn't as interesting because i don't have my thoughts fully sorted out on this matter and I wouldn't expect a response, let alone a back and forth. It's discussions like these that help figure out what I really think about it, so I appreciated that you're willing to take the time to talk about it.

I would argue that it provides lots of value precisely because a programmer's job is to think. Less time spent on brain-dead stuff means more time available to think.

We can agree that the reader is responsible for themselves, what they take in and how they respond to it. But why shouldn't the author also have responsibility? Or any of us for what we share on social media? Everyone has an impact on the world. Shouldn't we aim to minimize these impacts when they're negative?

I can choose for myself. You can choose for yourself. We cannot choose for other people.

Yeah, they're two different things. The commonality is one person's actions negatively affecting other people. As the party that's being negatively affected, it makes no sense to say that it's not your problem just because you're not the cause of the problem. Being negatively affected by it makes it your problem.

If someone picks up a gun and accidentally shoots you in the foot, what are you going to say? "I'm not an idiot. I know gun safety. If you shoot me in the foot, that's your problem, not mine."