far as I know, you can’t. they want your sweet sweet monetizable personal data. for Meta, every human interaction needs to be commodified, sold for ad revenue, and charged back to you as a subscription or AI pump and dump scheme.

I use Craigslist personally, the founder has repeatedly refused to sell his business or users data.

‘I Don’t Need Billions. You Should Know When Enough Is Enough’ – Craig From Craigslist Says He Rejected Billions To Redesign The Platform

from the article:

By design, the company doesn’t make a single cent on most transactions. … If you’ve ever used Craigslist, you’ve probably noticed it hasn’t changed much since the 1990s. No sleek designs or flashy updates – just a simple, functional interface. “People want it simple, fast and effective,” Craig said.

Over the years, venture capitalists have approached Craig with massive offers, urging him to monetize more aggressively or sell. They saw a gold mine in Craigslist’s scale and suggested ads, subscriptions or transaction fees. But Craig wasn’t interested.

“I don’t need billions,” he said. “I’ve met a bunch of rich people and none of them are all that happy.”

Colby Jack… tell me you’re indecisive without telling me you’re indecisive.

agreed. that’s literally their job. oppose the other party by whatever means at their disposal. use the press, support union actions, so many ideas. be bold be creative.

they at least should stop pretending that “playing by the rules” and “trusting the system” is an appropriate response to illegal orders, illegal firings, violations of constitutional doctrine, and open defiance of judicial and legislative oversight. relevant video from InnuendoStudio, sadly aged like wine

that’s an important (yet debatable) prediction. historically, in subsistence based economies where more farmhands=more food I think that’s been true. and holds true up to the point where costs of living don’t exceed net household wages (picture Dickens era chimney sweep kids laboring for a pittance).

what’s interesting is that it’s not true AT ALL for any other species in nature, only humans in the post ~1800s era have developed a seeming unlimited capability to secure more food for their young. wild deer populations naturally reduce themselves when food is scarce, but humans found a cheat code to growing forever.

hard to say. but it’s worth mentioning that although the doubling time for population has been contracting since 1800, it now appears to have flattened and is reversing direction.

maybe more accurate to compare say, fewer people choosing to have children vs fewer kids surviving to adulthood and what conditions contribute more to each

our only hope at this point is probably

1. people globally deciding to have fewer and fewer children due to rapidly deteriorating standards of living paired with rising inequality (no one will be able to afford kids let alone a home or healthcare)

2. perpetual multi-crises and climate catastrophes disrupting supply chains and halting economic growth/consumption

3. global economic collapse due to war, mass refugee migration, reshaping of national borders in a race to extract dwindling reserves of precious minerals and ore, also resulting in plummeting per capita consumption and/or birthrate

4. all of the above in a self-reinforcing feedback loop

… fuck, this was supposed to be the hopeful scenario. smh, we live in interesting times.

if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…