frank

If you are excluding people based on net worth or the software they use (or don't use), both are ridiculous.

If you want to find additional people who use a certain software or have a certain net worth, that if fine, since you are not excluding people based on that. Making new friends is usually a good idea. But being elitist and looking down on people is where I draw the line.

For me personally, I don't like abandoning friends because they don't use a particular software. That makes it cringe for me.

No matter what you did in this situation, you are screwed. If you don't respond harshly enough, you will be attacked for it. If you react too harshly, you will be accused of overreacting, even by people who agree with your reaction. It is impossible to please everyone in this situation.

A lot of people don't realize they are being manipulated to fight each other instead of dealing with the people who are actually causing the problems, the ones pulling the strings and syphoning off all the wealth for themselves and their friends.

Plot twist. All 5 are the same guy using multiple alt accounts.

That is a tactic they learned from real life tanks. Argue with one tank, more tanks show up.

PeerTube has a built-in redundancy system. Theoretically, you could mirror all the videos on PeerTube using PeerTube itself. Except those that do not allow mirroring.

#^https://docs.joinpeertube.org/admin/following-instances#instances-redundancy

Her previous picture was cuter.

Yeah, this bot did spam everybody.

And I have seen block lists where most of the stuff is toxic and should be blocked, but then mixed in there are people who pissed off the person maintaining the block list, usually over some petty dispute or the fact that they voted for the wrong guy in the last election. Unfortunately a lot of these distributed block lists wind up becoming the maintainer's personal weapon against enemies.

When you have large organizations, such as giant insurance companies or governments, dictating whether people can have care or not, when they ultimately say no to certain people, they will be mad, and perhaps set their targets on the CEO's or government bureaucrats that denied their care.

25 years ago, health care used to be more affordable. That was before the insurance companies paid for everything, and before hospitals were privatized and consolidated. Doctors could not charge a lot because people paid cash, and people would choose doctors with affordable rates. But now with copays, people think that the doctor costs $30. So the doctors charge hundreds of dollars to the insurance companies, knowing that if the patients paid cash themselves, they would refuse to pay such high charges. These higher fees just get passed back to the patient in the form of higher insurance premiums. So insurance is inflationary. The cost of healthcare is pushed up.

Government insurance tries to handle this by putting caps on what providers can charge, but you still have the problem of rationing of healthcare based on available funds, and it also gives bureaucrats control over your healthcare. It has all of the same problems as private health insurance, except it is run by the government. And if it is centralized, you can't go anywhere else for a second opinion. If they say no, you are screwed. So that is not ideal either.

If you abolish all private healthcare, then you only have government clinics, and the problem with that is that they can deny you care if they don't like you (a political dissident) or if they don't have the budget to pay for everyone's care.

Instead of any of those, you need some kind of system that is not inflationary, is affordable, and that gives people choices in their care. If one provider says no, they can go to another. The current system is really bad, but most of the alternatives that people suggest are just as bad or worse. If you want a better system, it must include patient choice.