Expected.

She basically said it herself though.

At this point, I’m not sure you understand what reactionary means?

The tech being fundamentally flawed has nothing to do with payments being stopped. Show me one reason where they said it was because they weren’t receiving the payments as shown by the blockchain.

What enormous transaction fees?

Stablecoin transfers on an Ethereum L2 like Arbitrum is a few cents and about to get even cheaper in the future. It’s 1/10000 of a cent on Solana.

Monero payments are 1-3 cents.

Bitcoin has the highest one I paid, something like 12-15 cents. This can go higher like $10 if the chain is busy but you have plenty of options in the crypto space to choose the appropriate chain for payments.

I mean, it’s very clear you just listen to mainstream news and actually believe their agenda.

It’s reactionary politics? I’m not sure what else led to the rejection. It doesn’t actively hurt them to accept crypto. They just capitulated to reactionaries in their rejection, what else would I call it?

I’m not even claiming that crypto in its current form can handle global transactional needs, but Wikipedia and Mozilla realised that it could just be an additional avenue for payments. It wasn’t hurting anyone and allowed people like me to contribute. How would you like it if you couldn’t pay for things because it upset other people’s views of what the world should be like? Because that’s what happened to me.

Wikipedia caved to white Western imperialists’ demands which have no basis in reality and excluded large portions of the world, most of which are marginalised communities who don’t have access to the same financial systems that Westerners do.

I’m just glad that SciHub isn’t headed by a reactionary but an actual person who cares about our rights to free and fair access to all things. And SciHub proves the need for an alternate financial system that isn’t dominated, or at least, directly controllable by vested interests of the Western financial system.

Your rant is not contrarian for Western imperialists who don’t want another financial system competing with their current hegemony.

That’s why crypto is hated by Westerners while most others have neutral to positive opinions of it generally.

And the transaction fees argument and time needed for confirmation doesn’t even make sense? Wikipedia doesn’t need to pay any fees to accept crypto and it’s not like they’re a business which needs the money a second after the transaction. Even if they did need it that quickly, there are plenty of choices in crypto that settle much faster than Bitcoin, which they used.

I definitely agree with your stance that we should exclude people from things because it’s inconvenient. This is why I don’t support accessibility measures in any domain.

I don’t even understand what your point is? Wikipedia doesn’t have to pay fees to accept crypto? They could keep other payment options too, no one said credit cards should not be allowed. They could just provide the address for the centralised exchange and sell it for cash with minimal problems.

What I’m finding out is that people have a bad case of Dunning-Kruger when it comes to crypto and it’s usually privileged Westerners who don’t care if other people are included or not. Just straight up racists.

Honestly, they are pretty well funded and don’t need the money. I just redirected my money to SciHub and Lemmy now.

Again, price volatility had nothing to with Wikipedia stopping crypto donations.

You can hate all you want, crypto is the only way I have to pay for a lot of things and it has definitely helped me more than reactionary moralists from the West living large in their oppression funded country.

I didn’t call them woke. Hell, people would probably call me woke if they asked about my political preferences. Being woke and being a reactionary pawn are two different things.

Except it was complaints from reactionaries which made them delete the option to donate through crypto after accepting it for years!

So, they were worried that an asset that has consistently gone up in the long term was too unstable to receive payments in? Your arguments make no sense.

I used to, but then they removed crypto because of propaganda efforts by reactionary idiots masquerading as progressives. Now, I have no way to donate to them.

Yeah killing millions of people was totally worth getting one man!

Now let’s bomb Washington DC to rubble and kill your family so we can get to Bush, the even bigger war criminal.

What are bottle episodes?

I think there’s a setting to bring back the buttons, if you want that.

Settings -> System -> Gestures -> System navigation

Next you’ll tell me you weren’t even born in this century!

I honestly never fancied musical episodes, but this was so well done, I loved it!

I mean, a lot of people who watch this probably don’t even know what Buffy is. I’ve never watched Buffy, it’s a pretty old show.

I think people have already answered your question. Just to add on, think about stuff that happened before the creation of an IP regime. Were people not creating things back then?

I would also like to clarify that I’m not talking about forcing people to reveal their secrets. If you want to keep your thing a secret, you’re welcome to. But, there should be no state prosecution if that thing gets made public.

And I do buy things if I enjoyed them and want to reward the creators. When I was a poor kid with no funds, I pirated a lot of videogames. Now that I’m a slightly older kid with some funds, I buy the games that I enjoy and my game piracy has gone down a lot. Without piracy, these future sales from me would have been lost because I probably wouldn’t care about videogames. Not a justification, just my feelings.

All piracy is ethical because Intellectual Property is a lie.

I will pirate from megacorps and indies, anyone who sets up a demand based distribution system for products.

The only products I will not pirate are those that have a needs based distribution system and are finite.

Is downloading people human trafficking?