As an example of what I am talking about, consider this blog. It is possible to earn money from this, by allowing ads to be posted on it. Now, there's a few fundamental problems with that, such as whether one wants to annoy readers, and that the amathiacs who set those things up probably think advertising neochristianity would be acceptable on this blog because it is "spiritual" (which view would emphasise the amathia, as far as I am concerned), but the killer for me is:
I am expected to know the contact details of every single person who looks at my blog, so that I can personally make sure that every single person who clicks on an ad is genuinely considering a purchase when they click.It's utterly absurd (there MUST be a legal case against this on the grounds of unreasonable conditions) - I know how many people visit from a nation, and that's about it. I don't know ANY contact details of people visiting - unless they email me. I know Dylan Winter at Keep Turning Left got into trouble on this issue (he has posted somewhere about it), and wound up losing a substantial amount of his family's income. In my case, as I cannot agree to a condition that I cannot fulfil, I have never signed up for the ads (and there are the other two concerns as well, but this is the main one). If I could be bothered, I'd make a complaint to the Consumer Affairs Department - and if I had a sensible way of contacting Blogger on this issue, I'd ask them outright for their advice as to how I should comply with this condition.
Before anyone cuts in with the obvious, yes, I am fully aware that this is probably intended as a tool to give Blogger, shall we say, "management options".
That does NOT make it right, or EVEN ACCEPTABLE!
How do you think this would have gone if no-one took uup the advertising option because they didn't know how they could comply with that condition?
I'd hazard a guess that a more sensible, fair and realistic condition would have been adopted.
Recently on facebook there have been fusses about being able to use the name by which one is best known, rather than one's legal name. Well,
every
single
oneof those people who got into trouble signed up using their non-legal name - making, incidentally, as far as I am concerned, their word on anything utterly meaningless from now on.
How would it have been if more people objected to facebook doing that, and gathering all sorts of information they have NO right to?
Again, if enough people had declined or fussed over that condition, it would have been changed at an early stage. Enough early objectors would have prevented quite a few of the other problems that facebook is associated with as well.
However, facebook didn't have to worry about anything, because there were so many people who were desperate to "be part of the latest fad", or who had a "fear of missing out" (FOMO), or just didn't care about ethics.
I'm sadly part of something similar, with a real estate agent asking for information that he has no right to nor need of (and has possibly verged close to deceptive conduct, in my view), but we need somewhere to live so have to bloody go along with the **** or live on the streets (I'll be writing a letter to my local MPs about this in the not too distant future) - and I ****ing loathe myself for it, for sacrificing the principle of doing WHAT IS RIGHT.
Every single one of the amathiacs I have mentioned above - including myself - is ACTIVELY, directly, CONTRIBUTING energy to
every
single
unethical problem
in the world - from cheating politicians thought those who cheat on their taxes and those who steal from work to political fraud, deception and embezzlement - and every instance of doing something for hidden motives.
We need more people to make some sort of effort to be prepared to go without if the conditions of having something are spiritually or ethically unacceptable (and I include the environment in that, as I look at ridiculously over sized houses which would have been better trading some of that size and flashiness for more substantial (possibly non-flammable) walls.
While I'm having this whinge, I also consider people rush into complicating their loves too much with social engagements - but if they didn't do so, I suppose they'd have to fill up some of the empty spaces with things like thinking, and that would be too terrible to contemplate.
[2] Please see here, here, here and my post "The Death of Wikipedia" for the reasons I now recommend caution when using Wikipedia. I'm also exploring use of h2g2, although that doesn't appear to be as extensive (h2g2 is intended - rather engagingly - to be the Earth edition of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy").
Love, light, hugs and blessings
- If your “gut” (your instinct/intuition) is telling you something is wrong, but logic and the available evidence is saying otherwise, the proper conclusion to draw is that you need better, more personally credible evidence. Your “gut” could be wrong, right, or missing the nuances / “shades of grey” . So could the available evidence.
- All of the above - and this blog - could be wrong, or subject to context, perspective, or state of spiritual evolution ...
Last edited (excluding fixing typo's
and other minor matters): Sunday, 10th March, 2024 - removed ableist slurs, added current end notes with copyright etc, toned down formatting, added a typo
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram.
Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024 NO AI
I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence
(AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or
other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to
reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of
this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s
may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.
Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative
Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
.jpg)
