I hope you can realize this is a false equivalency, but maybe you can’t?

2. The workers get paid, they get value out of it, they aren’t slaves.

3. The company wouldn’t exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

Look at a company like Blockbuster. With a better owner they could have changed their position to stay around as a company, but the owner made bad choices. If there was no owner what would have happened? It probably would have failed even quicker because there is nobody making decisions and most employees probably didn’t see the wiring on the wall until it was too late.

A good owner would have seen the direction the market was going and changed the company to prepare. Netflix has been fighting this fight for a while now, switching from streaming other’s content to making their own content. Without an owner they would have died a long time ago.

So take away ownership of a company just because it’s too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

Yes to taking away wealth or the way to leverage it?

1. So all those times I’ve gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

2. Of course they do, I don’t expect a given employee who isn’t the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

3. So what? What’s your point?

Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What’s the problem ?

I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those “loopholes” of low interest loans on shares.

What’s your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It’s not like they have billions to spend, it’s that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

Welcome to Fuck Cars

It was near the top of everything, or whatever we call /r/all over here, that’s where I saw it. I think it was in a technology community, but not 100% sure.

Can you tell me about your experience with ads on sync? Where did you see them, how often did you see them?

The ads on sync really aren’t that annoying at all.

I think a lot of the love for it is that sync was arguably the best android Reddit app for a long time. People like myself have become very comfortable with sync on Reddit, and sync for Lemmy is basically the same thing we are all so comfortable with.

I looked at some of the other alternatives and they just didn’t feel as good to me, but I have also been using sync almost daily for years.

While I agree, I think sync takes the award for most non intrusive ads in an app. I don’t think I’ve seen a free ad supported app with less intrusive ads.

I can easily see this being a safety issue. You don’t usually want employees wearing stuff that could anger other employees or customers, no matter the reason.

Most Atheists define Atheism as “lack of belief in a God”, which seems like it applies here. Agnostic is usually defined as “lack of knowledge of a God”, which also works here, so both Agnostic and Atheist.

It makes sense when you look at Theist (with belief in a God) and Gnostic (with knowledge of a God) that adding an A before it just means “without”.

As a Sync user myself, why should I switch? I’ve been using Sync for years on Reddit, I love the interface, and I don’t mind if the dev makes a bit of money from it with the occasional and minimally intrusive ads or paid ad removal.

No problem, It’s interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it’s also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It’s much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.

Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don’t exist.

As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.