you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
No bio...
User ID: 92
If @SomethingMusic had only said it was a waste of government spending I wouldn't have made my comment.
Instead he said the government was subsidizing migrant labor by $350/day, so I did make my comment.
Of course it helps the government are subsidizing migrants to the tune of $350 per day, or $127,750 per year per migrant which would launch them almost into the top 10% of earners in the United States.
I recommend you go to prison in New York City. They make 4 times as much per day.
Comparing government spending and personal income is not meaningful at all. The government's ability to burn money without increasing social welfare is legendary, so unless you want to argue that the government is actually giving $350 of value to each migrant per day, it's dishonest to pretend like that's $350/day of subsidy.
- Prev
- Next
The discussion about payment processors earlier in the year included discussion of controversial topics (incest, bestiality, sexual exploitation of a minor, rape, non-consensual mutilation), and the change you link to today includes those.
However, the most recent announcement also says the restrictions are "to comply with regional laws", and includes much more general pornography:
In other words: I don't think these most recent changes are driven by payment processors. I think they're being driven by states like Texas making hosting porn more legally fraught (i.e. the same thing that made Pornhub pull out of Texas).
More options
Context Copy link