Yes, my comment wasn’t about online casinos but about the people who think they have a right to tell others how to live their lives. I’m not defending the gambling industry, I think gambling is stupid. I’m defending the right of the people to make their own decisions.

My “defense of the gambling industry” was just me pointing out that as long as something isn’t inherently nonconsensual and the terms and conditions are clear there is no reason to forbid other people from doing it just because you disagree with it.

There are ways to cryptographically verify bet integrity, but that’s not important. The point I was trying to make is that people should have the right to make their own decisions, even if you disagree with them, even if they’re objectively wrong.

I presume you don’t consider yourself to be a part of the aforementioned majority? Do you believe it makes you superior? Do you believe you know better what’s best for them? Do you believe you must protect them from themselves, even at the cost of their self-determination?

Who’s “they”? I don’t know much about the gambling industry but if it’s anything like any other industry then it’s not a centralized monolith but many independent business. As long as the founding principles aren’t inherently corrupt (and in the case of casinos they aren’t. Nobody is forced to play and everyone knows the house has an advantage and in the long term is guaranteed to win. Because of this it doesn’t make sense for the house to cheat and risk getting caught, it will win anyway.) there is no reason to think that the majority of the industry engages in criminal activity. This is a massive generalization.

Why are online casinos bad? I don’t understand this pervasive need some people have to force their way of life on others and take away their agency over their own lives. It comes off to me as some kind of superiority complex. “They’re too stupid to make their own decisions, I know better what’s best for them, I must protect them from themselves”.

Is there any benefit to it over nostr though? You’d have to link your public key to your account(s) and store a backup of your private key in addition to your regular login/password just to get a more fragmented and less seamless version of nostr. A lot of people already have issues figuring out how fediverse works with multiple instances and all… now they’d have multiple accounts with different credentials to keep track of on top of a meta login/password (pub/priv key). With nostr you only have 1 login/password (pub/priv key) to everything, it’s just long and you can’t change it. At least I think that’s how it works, I don’t really use twitter/nostr/mastodon type of sites.

So nostr?

Most of the article talks about the CEO and the company, the only criticisms of the actual product (the browser) is that it’s bloated, which is very subjective because one mans bloat is another mans feature and the affiliate link injection scandal from 4 years ago, which definitely shouldn’t have been done but at least it wasn’t malicious and now is gone.

To be honest I think people on here dislike brave primarily due to ideological reasons, completely ignoring the fact that 99.9% of people aren’t hackermans™ and don’t want to install gnu icecat or librewolf with 7 different extensions. For those people it’s either chrome/edge or brave, the latter, even if not perfect is a way better option both for them and the internet.

What’s wrong with brave?

Then mandate smokers to smoke in a way that doesn’t affect other people. There’s plenty of things that can be done so that non-smokers don’t have to breath in smoke and smokers can retain autonomy over their bodies. But it’s not realy about that, is it? In a world where you pass hundreds smoke spewing machines every time you walk down the street, and every city requires a huge smoke making facility running 24/7 that can turn the whole sky gray if the wind blows the wrong way, cigarette smoke is the least of your worries. What it realy is about is control over other people, taking away their choice and forcing them to conform to your way of life.

Alcohol, weed, porn, gambling, sex, gaming, candy… can be addictive. Let’s ban or strictly limit all of that coz people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Addictive psychoactive substances strip you of choice, so instead we’ll have politicians strip you of choice and make decisions for you.

Then ban smoking in public.

How about we let adults make their own decisions. My body my choice.

Internet would be better if javascript was never invented.

Because available spots in colleges are limited in order to give to one group you have to take away from another, it’s a zero sum game. I don’t know what the right answer is but I know that treating asian kids worse because they are asian isn’t one. I also don’t belive that kids should suffer for the sins of their grandparents.

Like I said I don’t know what the right answer is but I think offering scholarships to talented, hardworking kids who can’t afford to pay for school, regardless of race is a better solution than race based preferential treatment.

I guess being treated better/worse because of the color of your skin is equality.