Well, that’s not entirely wrong: the website owner is responsible for contracting with Cloudflare in the first place.

It is probably just a question of price per unit. Adding a button would increase the cost drastically. If you want security, you just don’t go with a RFID tag. You go with a smartcard protected by a PIN. Security-minded people are not the market segment for RFID tags. And if people are forced to use a RFID tag in a security context, they can protect the tag with a shield.

You can ask them in lemmy.ml/c/veganism We are open to people asking honest questions.

Yes, I knew about that and I find this an excellent feature! This is the reason why I’m asking about the “by default” behavior and not about “disabling score for everyone”. I like that this is optional. I’m asking the community their thoughts about having scores hidden by default ;)

deleted by creator

Maybe they just like link aggregators and the classification by communities? I don’t use score-based sorting algorithms, precisely because I do not like how people vote on Lemmy.

I did not know that there are such options in Lemmy admin interface. That’s very good! Thank you for the information

Edit: According to the admin documentation, one can indeed disable downvotes but I don’t think one can hide scores for all users by default.

I checked and you are correct about beehaw. Thank you for the pointer. I’ll probably subscribe to their communities :)

Veganism is a radical movement.

I disagree, but I can feel the radicality of a newly converted in your words. Newly converted often come from carnism and it took them a form of trauma or sudden enlightnement to take the step. Often, after that, they are very radical, hating the world for not making the same choice they did. For being blind to the horrors. Then they learn that their radical approach is toxic to the cause and thus to the animals in the long run.

I have been vegetarian for 33 years, and then vegan for 7 years, and my parents taught me antispeciesism when I was a child. I’ve grown my whole life (40 years), knowing that I had a different take on things than most people. I had a lot of time to think about it and I acquired a lot of experience talking about animal rights. I learned over all these years that you cannot convince anyone with radicality. And so does L214, the most prominent NGO in France for animal rights. No radical French NGO made any difference, except for the few dozens they actively saved, while millions were dying every day meanwhile.

Even if the end goal is abolitionism, having a moderate approach, and pushing for welfarist laws are pratical ethics in action. They improve the life of millions of animals, help the public to understand the issues, and simply make you audible. Screaming your hatred at the world will just make you look odd and you are helping no animal that way. None. In fact, I dare say that radical veganism is even counterproductive because it scares people away. People that would cease to be part of the problem and even people that could convince others to stop being part of it. Domino effect.

I recommand that you read Singer’s book on Henry Spira’s life and methods. I recommend you read Full Spectrum Resistance. This might teach you a few things about convincing people and defending a cause.

Regarding symbiosis, organisms, including animals, can live together and be mutually beneficial to each other. Do you think your microbiota is taking advantage of you? Is it exploiting you? In a way it does, because it manipulates you and influences your psyche. Yet, you would die without it. You feed it, and it keeps you alive. Do you see where I am going? Sure, the microbiota is not sentient but you are. And you are the one being exploited, if we stick to your definition of exploitation.

I’m not gonna argue, as I said, because I know that people that are as extremist as you are cannot be reasoned with. Also, you are admin and you seem to have the ban hammer quite heavy, so I’m not gonna risk it. I left this community yesterday and won’t come back. Your approach is so extreme that you manage to scare away even other vegans/antispeciesists. This should give you pause as to how you are actually defending animals by having that kind of behavior.

Just a comment on that single sentence, because this seems all wrong to me:

Animal welfarism consists in the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species.

I have no idea how you manage to conflate welfarism, utilitarianism and speciesism. Animal welfarism can and should encompass humans. Please notice how I said “If the relation between animals is symbiotic”. If I had a speciesist approach because of my welfairism, I would have said something like “If the relation between humans and animals is symbiotic”. Veganism is not about purity. It is about ethics and the living. By definition, utilitarianism is a branch of the philosophy of ethics. Since you said that “animal welfarism is not veganism” and you define animal welfarism as “the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species”, my understanding is that you are not seeking ethics but purity and thus missing the point entirely.

I feel like I took the bait. You can now ban me.

Animal welfarism is not veganism

I disagree. This sounds like gate keeping. For me, veganism is about being against animal exploitation. If the relation between animals is symbiotic (mutually beneficial), I personally don’t think this is exploitation.

I don’t want to debate about it. I’ve already been down that road and it is not pretty. Vegans don’t win anything by tearing each other apart. But I want to offer a different vision of what veganism is to the OP.

Thank you for your answer. It clearly challenges my position regarding f2p games. I completely forgot about piracy, now having the chance of earning enough to pay for stuff, but you are correct and that is a very good argument.

Again, very good argumentation. Thank you. Your comments are much appreciated.

Some people may say “having access to candy crush has made me happier” but what’s actually increased there happiness isn’t access to a video game but distraction from the world around them as an example. That can be accomplished through several means and none of them require exposing oneself to potential manipulation for profit by a company.

That particular argument gives me much to think about. 👍

Those are good arguments. I need to take some time and think on them. Thank you.

The world is objectively worse because of free to play video games.

That was not my argument. I did not say it was all pink and that nobody suffered from f2p. I talked about the overall happiness. The same utilitarian approach can be used when talking about vaccines. Some people die because they took a vaccine shot. However the overall population is better because of the vaccine.

I’m not saying that f2p games are comparable to vaccine. I’m just trying to make clear that my argument is utilitarian, and that I’m not disregarding people having issues because of f2p games.

I respect your argumentation, but I believe you slightly twisted mine. By “people with income”, I wanted to say “people with enough income to spend some on recreational activities”.

Concerning the “insane potential for returns”, I’m sorry to say that the company that I worked for and for which I developed a f2p game was a small company of 5 employees that never took off all that much. It is a business model. It is not a miraculous business model.

by your assessment its fine to exploit people for profit if they have an income

That’s the basic concept of a salary. I would agree that there are unfair salaries, sure. That’s when we can start talking about exploitation. I’m ok with salaries. I’m not ok with exploitation.

it preys the most not on the people who have money to burn but on neurodivergent folks predisposed to addictive behaviors

I would be really interested in reading studies on the classification of whales. If that assertion is true, this would change my mind about f2p in a split second.

Thank you for your answer.

Diablo Immor(t)al is a pretty terrible case when it comes to trying to squeeze as much money as possible from people. We, players, are harassed by the notifications for paying features. And it is not just a “pay to skip”/“pay to fast” system: it is also a pay to win game for the competitive scene. That’s bad.

On the other hand, it has at least 120 hours of free content…

My arguments are not in defense of Diablo Immor(t)al, though. They are in defense of Free to play in general, with reserves.

I don’t get the downvotes on this message. I can understand why the other posts might be NOK for some people, but this one? Please explain it to me.

Artists need an income. Are we all in an agreement on this? You would not ask for a musician to play a full concert every night for free, right? Why would it be fair to ask a developer to develop a game for free? Do they not deserve a salary? And where would the money come from if not from people having money to spend on games?

Yes I fully agree games should have options to allow those with jobs and busy lives to skip progression (outside of any competitive sphere) but they shouldn’t have to pay for it?!

I totally agree with that. If the game is not free, this should be considered an accessibility feature.

If the game is free, developers need to find ways to get money from the game. People with income are good targets, both on the economical and ethical standpoint :)

Downvoters are invited to articulate their disagreement :)