There are better ways to do what you are implying. The entire FOSS movement is an example of this.

Free doesn’t mean free beer.

Technically correct, but is it right to say it?

Same situation applies in other situations, and it isn’t limited to addiction.

The way I understand about this stack is that it still relies on steam architecture under the hood. So emulation of the steam client to run the game is what has to occur?

Well in that case I can agree.

I’m contested on this. The thing is, this logic applies everywhere even the extremely evil corpos like nvidia, palantir, etc. There will always be someone scraping the bottom earning for scraps in all different types of companies.

So where do we draw the line? How evil must the company be so it is fair to leave the lower level employees behind?

Ultimately, I dont think it is fair for the consumers. We are drawned in this choice where support for the lower class means feeding the executive class. It all trickles down, and thats the problem.

enought to make everyone on earth billionaires

How very thoughtful. Hope the present billionaires dont accidentally hoard it.

Narcissism and failed education leads to fascism. Who would of thought. The system we have congratulates assholery and abuse of power, so I’d say trust issues are expected.

The school producing another generation of femboys.

Jellyfin is FOSS. Taking a single step towards the Plex route will be going against the ethos of Jellyfin as a whole. It is community owned - rather than private, and if there are unethical practice’s involved, then people can and will jump ship forking the whole project at nearly 1:1 scale.

Because of the way jellyfin is built and the underlying philosophy. It can’t enshitify that easily as Plex - it will need a massive community effort to change it.

It is also useful to read on the history of jellyfin as it does highlight some useful pointers.

Fascism starts with attacking the minorities. In this case minors are the tool, and reducing their rights to ashes will only enable further progression of fascism. It essentially feeds on discrimination.

Exactly that, one bullshit goes into circulation, it spreads everywhere strengthening its flawed position. And just like it was said, facts dont even matter at that point - requiring a novel approach to disprove it.

Their brains are literally not fully developed

The brain doesn’t stop developing till your thirties, source. According to this argument 30 year olds should also be subjected to banning.

right-winger posts some obscene post.

left-winger replies with a “gotcha” style of reply, disregarding anything else.

Both continue to use the same platform.

That is one hell of a strawman you got there.

The second paragraph is the one which should be constantly highlighted. Sometimes people rather argue for the sake of arguing rather than debate the root cause. This also relates to the point of how facts and logic supposedly give clarity to conversation - which sometimes they dont, as arguing is what they may desire.

How is this a distinction without a difference?

Firstly, example1 states that:

A minor is a person under the age of majority, typically 18 in many jurisdictions, focused on legal capacity, while a child generally refers to a person in the early stages of life, emphasizing dependency and development.

This goes with the evidence that zombie supplied - supporting the fact that child and minor refer to two different things. So I don’t necessarily understand where this distinction without a difference is here?

Secondly, there is no need for moving the goalposts as the definitions themselves are clear about differing aspects of those two words.

Oh I already did. It seems there is a lot of confusion around the definitions of child and minor. Zombie’s evidence highlighted that fact and it is necessary to point that out - such as I did within the following statement.

Along with the evidence, however, Zombie did include some strawmen which where completely unrelated to the root argument. But alas the evidence they supplied says its own words.

This conclusion doesn’t follow the basic definition:

between the stages of birth and puberty

These where individuals past the pubertal age which is commonly stated as 13.

English-speaking countries, the legal definition of child generally refers to a minor,

Only necessarily this paragraph relates to the scope. But as stated, minor is the word which should technically be used.

In law, a minor is someone under a certain age, usually the age of majority, which demarcates an underage individual from legal adulthood. The age of majority depends upon jurisdiction and application, but it is commonly between 18 and 21.

Isn’t that essentially introducing straw men? The root point of this all was the word child not minor - as this is the correct term as you literally stated here.

They were children. There is no need to adultify minors here.

Your proof doesn’t necessarily state that these where children, rather that they where minors. Also that last sentence is completely out of loop, where did I state that they where adults? If you’re going to throw made up accusations then do it somewhere else.

In what way does this ad hominem have any relation to the inherent ageism and defiance to the definition which I have pointed out?

Youth rights and children rights should not be forgotten. These rights are the most impacted here, which fundamentally causes them to succeed in the eradication of privacy rights.