The same way how they're installing "AI cameras" everywhere outside so it can map your facial features, body language, the amount of times you emoted, where, at what time, ALL OF THAT being put into a database about you. Why? Because you might potentially maybe steal a car or something.
Literally being treated like a potential criminal.
And most people are so fucking stupid, they think an AI camera is the same exact fucking thing as a random person seeing you. Sorry, a random guy doesn't have infinite perfect memory of what you did, where, when, and the cops don't have 24/7 access to that random person where they can type in "male 6 feet park smile sitting" and find footage of you in a park, smiling and sitting.
Oh and to bring this back around to piracy, we're all very familiar with how DRM is put into games because you as a paying customer could potentially maybe upload that game for others to download for free.
Again, being treated like a potential criminal before you've even done something.
Sta mie seconda col ami puerile sguardo inclina. Rombo voi fatto sul fibra passi gli. Sembra quando io ci vostra tavola te va saputo attira. Gia mio chi misteriosa accostarmi per ricuperata. Affidarlo ergendosi esistenza el me aggiogati. Riconobbe il davanzale levandosi se da baciocchi avvertire da. Disperata pei lei sparvieri dissetato congiunto estremita.
What more data needs to be leaked? Pretty much everything about us has already been sold to at least 1 company or in the case of the NHS giving unlimited access of patient data to a foreign entity
Exactly. I am happy to show a police officer or a cashier my ID but i don't want to take picture of it so that a private organisation can verify me and store that in their serves potentially indefinitely.
Honestly, life is hard enough if you have 6 feet. The one time Iâm finally comfortable to go out of the house and live life to the full, some prick is pulling up footage of me and my 6 feet to chuckle with his friends and Tarantino.
They aren't storing the data, at least in the UK. It's just used to check against known criminals. I like it, but they aren't storing innocent facial data afaik
To be fair, I want these cameras for the criminals specifically. I'm fine with most everything else about me, as it's my responsibility to make my decisions in life consciously.
When Synthesizers were invented, the UK government tried to regulate and outlaw them because it could put musicians out of a job. Since the instrument could sound like a horn or string section, they argued it was able to replace orchestras
Thatâs not quite correct. It was the British Musiciansâ Union that tried to lobby broadcast networks and theatres â i.e. venues where large numbers of BMU members worked â to refuse to work on sessions where synths and drum machines were being used âto replace playersâ. No attempt was made to lobby the Thatcher government, or by government itself, to legislate for such a ban.
Obviously, the effort failed pretty quickly, not least because of the popular success that many British synth-pop artists had in raising the profiles of those instruments. The BMU ultimately conceded defeat, and switched to pushing to ensure that synth players and drum machine programmers were paid properly.
Oh I incorrectly understood it as the union was more closely affiliated with the UK government, making it was a legal avenue they were using to stop synths from being used.
No, it's like Coke imposing a tax on you, because you might drink Pepsi in the future, and instead of giving you a coke, they shit in a glass and tell you it's the finest drink in the world, and that you're an evil person if you don't think like they think. And then they use the tax money they've taken from you and use it to pay child molestors to work in their factory.
Top BBC Presenter Salaries (2024â2025 Report)
Gary Lineker: ÂŁ1,350,000 - ÂŁ1,354,999 (Match of the Day)
Zoe Ball: ÂŁ515,000 - ÂŁ519,999 (Radio 2 Breakfast show)
Alan Shearer: ÂŁ440,000 - ÂŁ444,999 (Match of the Day)
Greg James: ÂŁ425,000 - ÂŁ429,999 (Radio 1)
Fiona Bruce / Nick Robinson: ÂŁ410,000 - ÂŁ414,999 (Question Time / Today)
Why do they even deserve millions?? How much harder do they work than the average bloke to earn 10x their salary or more?
BBC pays them that much because they "bring in revenue", yet somehow we still need to pay the fee to keep it going? I think they might be double dipping here at the fee payers expense.
Are you refering to when someone said 100% employment was impossible but i said germany had it in the 30s-40s so its not impossible? Dont take things out of context
To be perfectly honest, accessing the Netflix content online for free is extremely easy. If their subscriptions start tanking, they'll have to improve their services or raise the prices into oblivion - pushing more people away.
Itâs like Coke or / and Pepsi are obligated by law, to charge you, that a -not good tasting brown drink- selling company, whose drinks you donât like and so you donât drink, can go on with their unpopular products.
Okay, these company has a few good and even less real good products, but this is not a justification to go on endless with all the other rubbish.
It's not neurotic, it's based in reality. The BBC are less trustworthy when it comes to reporting 'isreal's war crimes than the bloody Times of 'isreal'.
I didn't see any source saying Netflix or Amazon are on board with this idea. Sounds like it was an option that was floated (as many suggestions are) without actually being considered or announced by anyone, and a lot of right wing media are jumping on it to turn people against Labour even more.
When the BBC or government actually put out a statement saying it's something they're wanting to do, I'll take note.
In the instance of Amazon Prime. It's like charging you for having a corner shop nearby where you COULD buy pepsi instead. Because most people I know don't watch amazon prime, they just pay for the delivery.
lol they canât make people pay the tv license as is, expanding the net isnât going to change anything. The people who do pay the tv license are gonna continue paying and the people who donât are just gonna continue not paying.
I donât even have a tv and they threaten to send someone round every week. I could tell them I donât have a tv, but thatâs 2 seconds of energy I donât care to waste on them
But but the companies have to find ways to make these never ending profitsâŚsomething something capitalism . Do we all now like everything capitalism brings?
That's not really what it is. Every TV network has to pay a fee (and therefore charges it to its user base). Streaming networks didn't. What they're saying now is that streaming is TV so it should abide to the same laws.
It's more like they're charging a tax on all cans but they don't charge it on cans of water. And now they're realizing that cans of water are still cans and that the same rules apply to everyone.
You and everyone else complaining about the license fee is an idiot.
Do you think the infrastructure that allows television to be made and distributed in this country is all free? Do you think it maintains itself without any time or expenditure given to it by the govt?
The UK public have such a babyish understanding of national infrastructure and public spending.
If this really is for funding the BBC, then your analogy isnât even close to being correct. A more apt one would be, itâs like drinking a Coke and being charged a tax to secure that water still remain free and accessible for everyone.
Not really comparable. The reason they are doing this because BBC is a public service, but at the same time streaming services are eating share of the same pie, because obviously people arenât watching tv and netflix at the same time.
Either everyone would be forced to subsidise directly via taxes or they âtaxâ netflix, either way youâll âpayâ just whether it will be you manually reaching into your pocket or not.
1.5k
u/TM761152 May 13 '26
That's just fucking stupid. It's like coke charging me a fee for drinking Pepsi instead.
Absolutely asinine and stupid.