I already sometimes access YT through Firefox for Android, mainly for playing music in the background. Maybe I’ll change that at some point, but currently I still normally use the official YouTube app for watching videos.

Android consists of way more free and open source software than iOS. There’s a fork of Android, Replicant, which is endorsed by the FSF. Free and open source software does not have owners. It’s true that most people who use it (including me) still use versions of it that are mostly nonfree software. But Android is a step in the right direction, while iOS is one in the wrong direction.

It’s possible to use an Android phone and rarely or never see ads at all. Pretty much the only place I regularly see ads on my (stock) Android phone is in the YouTube app, and I could probably live without that too if I wanted.

I only heard it about Germany under Hitler.

Oh come on. I dislike copyright law as much as anyone, but this just makes the case against it look stupid.

The German cognates of these mean the same as in Spanish, and I think that’s also true for most other languages, so English is the weird language here.

Doesn’t “Handy” come from Swabian dialect “hen di koi Schnur” or something? /s

I actually dislike the term “social media” in the first place, only used it above for convenience…

I (seriously) discovered that there were websites that allowed the general public to participate in the mid-2000s when I was a preteen. I immediately liked that concept and started to participate on such sites (first forums, later wikis) myself and found that fun.

Then around 2008, everyone started to insist that such sites were now called “social media” and the most important ones were Facebook and Twitter, both of which I hadn’t heard of until around that time, and both of which didn’t seem like very fun or appealing places at all.

Now I keep hearing about the horrible things apparently caused by “social media” and wonder, what do you even mean, what could possibly be wrong with web forums.

It reproduces how reddit works. Or used to work because over there nowadays I sometimes randomly (unpredictably) get notifications for lower-level comments too, which isn’t an entirely useless feature, but very much looks like “trying to increase engagement”.

Hurray! People stop doing stupid shit!

you certainly have a high opinion of your own activities, eh?

I agree that the kind of “social media” that is popular among the general public (i.e. sharing information about one’s own life) is fairly stupid. But Lemmy too is “social media”, any support forum is “social media”, even wikis are “social media”, and I do not think that those are stupid things to do, at all.

speak for yourself

At the Vienna main railway station (Wien Hbf) there is or was an ATM, operated by Erste Bank, where you can choose to get 200 euro notes.

Sounds similar to the 200 euro note. Though I did once manage to withdraw one from an ATM, and it was accepted at a grocery store without problems.

Both of these terms have more than one meaning, some of which overlap with each other, so the question is impossible to answer objectively. Both terms can refer to a belief system that people would usually describe as “left-wing” (~ “anarchism”, “libertarian socialism”, “left-libertarianism”, “anarcho-communism”), or one that people would usually describe as “right-wing” (~ “anarcho-capitalism”, “(right-)libertarianism”, “minarchism”).

Myself, I use “libertarian” as the antonym of “authoritarian”, so “libertarian” is a positive term for me; after all (like most people) I think authoritarianism is a bad thing. But libertarianism doesn’t need to be, nor is it usually, completely 100% against all hierarchy and all authority. It can still hold that some hierarchy and authority is necessary for getting things to function, but that it should be limited or accountable.

I don’t consider myself any sort of “anarchist”, I think it’s impossible to completely do away with authority, hierarchy, or government, no matter how much I think those things should have limits to their powers.

Of course I also very strongly believe that what leftists call “capitalism” (i.e. the economic system the world currently mostly runs on) is not, like they say, just another class society where the function of the state is to keep the ruling class in power. There are no formally defined classes in a liberal democracy like there were under feudalism. The mere existence of private property rights and wage labor doesn’t create a class society; those things have existed for millennia of human history and are here to stay. So for that reason I disagree with anarcho-communists when they say that in an “anarchy”, there would no longer be private property.

If I had grown up with them since childhood, I don’t think they’d be difficult. I didn’t though, and have no need to learn them. They all look like randomly aligned boxes to me and learning them doesn’t sound like a fun activity at all.

set it to sorting by “new comments”, it’s what I did to make sure I see somewhat different things most of the time I refresh it

I don’t wear shorts if the daily maximum is going to be below 30°C. Way too cold with shorts.

Yes, but that’s not the case in all or even most countries. In my country most constitutional amendments can be made by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Usually this involves the government coalition negotiating with one or more opposition parties to vote with them.

Of course there are other countries where there is no constitution (in the sense of a supreme law that other laws are subordinate to and can be struck down by the courts if they don’t comply with it) at all, e.g. the UK.

Because the US does not have referendum.

I think it would probably be possible for Congress to pass a law with a clause “this law is subject to a referendum and shall go into effect only if approved by a majority of voters” or similar. That’s pretty much something any legislature can do if it wants to, even if the constitution doesn’t specifically authorize it. But I don’t think this has ever happened in the US.

In my country the constitution specifically authorizes this and it has happened once, which resulted in a law passed by the legislature not taking effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Austrian_nuclear_power_referendum

What exactly did Clinton do “a couple times” in regards to referendums?!

The process for amending the US constitution doesn’t involve referendums.