Great idea, let’s just disregard the first amendment entirely. And then once we’ve done that, the government would also be free to establish a state religion and force all of us to follow it.
I think we better put that monkeys paw back where we found it.
In many states priests are mandatory reporters.
But they can’t be forced to abandon their religious beliefs by the government by breaking the seal of confession.
That’s not a rule he can get rid of. The seal of confession is a matter of doctrine and divine law and the pope isn’t authorized to overrule god.
Also, again, there’s no rule against turning in child rapists. There’s a rule against breaking the seal of confession. If a priest finds out about a crime in any manner besides confession, they’re free to contact authorities.
And it’d be a dumbass idea anyway. If a criminal is coming to confession in the first place then there is some remorse for what they’ve done, which means that person might be encouraged to turn themselves in. If you started reporting them when they came to confession, it’ll work once or twice and then criminals would just stop going to confession. Which additionally, is an anonymous act. The priest doesn’t know who you are when you go to confession.
If you’re referring to priests turning in child rapists via breaking the seal of confession, no. Doing so is an automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, that’s not something he’s instituted.
This week he did affirm his zero-tolerance policy on not only child abuse within the church, but also any attempts to cover them up. So the closest thing I can think of is the fact that’s he’s essentially threatened to defrock child abusers and anyone who covers for them.
Creative business accounting.
Yearly? Thats frankly nuts lol
Server costs? I mean for a media serving website at this scale you need the servers, storage, people to run the servers, people to development the website, fix bugs, keep on top of security. If you had a very talented team that was very lean, and each member of which can wear multiple hats to reduce headcount, you’re talking $400-$600,000 a year just in salaries. Thats before you consider taxes, benefits, etc.
Do you think bandcamp is run by like one guy renting bargain bin shared cpu servers from AWS?
Revolt can’t be considered viable in my mind until the mobile app stops hardcoding the official instance and lets users connect it to selfhosted instances.
I thought it was pretty clear that I meant more people tended to read than listen to audio books in the 90s.
More people tend to read than listen to audio books today. Despite that audiobooks are very popular today. They were also very popular in the 90s and 00s. So I guess I’m still wondering what exactly your point is? Having books read to you is popular today, it was popular in the 00s, it was popular in the 90s, it was popular 200 years ago, it was popular 2,000 years ago, etc.
people read books out loud all of the fucking time, particularly before literacy became so common.
That’s just it, it was not particularly before literacy became so common. People read books out loud all the time before literacy was common, and they did it all the time after literacy was common. They do it all the time today. It’s a thing we’ve collectively been doing for one reason for another for thousands of years so I don’t understand where you or OP are coming from when you refer to is as being something that’s normal now but not “before”. Especially with OPs tone of righteous indignation against it.
You’re downloading videos every time you watch a video on YouTube.
Since Nextcloud stores your actually data on the disk, it doesn’t actually matter all that much tbh
More people don’t listen to audiobooks than reading today. But there was never “A time where books were for reading [as opposed to listening to]”
People have been listening to books for millennia. And before books they were listening to the things we now put in books. If you go back far enough more people did listen to books more than read them. And if we reach that point again, it won’t be some newfangled idea it would just be something we’ve done for thousands of years becoming very popular again.
It existed in the 90s and early 00s
I was around in the 90s and early 00s and I can assure you it very much did not. The popularity of audiobooks grew significantly in the 90s. Books on tape had been a thing for awhile already and the popularity of audiobooks on CD exploded in the early to mid 90s. You could buy or even rent them from music stores, libraries, video stores, even supermarkets. They even had little listening stations where you could hear the first chapter of popular books before buying them.
In 1995 Audible was founded and brought about the advent of digital audiobooks downloaded from the internet which only accelerated their popularity. By the time the 00s started audiobooks were a multi billion dollar industry.
doesn’t mean that they don’t remember a time when it wasn’t more popular than just reading.
Well that’s also a misunderstanding of the history of Audiobooks because I believe even today audiobooks are not more popular than reading physical books. So that time you “remember” would be… the present. So what is your point here exactly, you think OP is turning his nose up at audiobooks out of a sense of superiority due to his memories of a time where listening to books being read existed but was less popular than it is now in the future, but also in the past? Like we somehow peaked during some minuscule point in time where listening to books was at a lower point than others? Oook
Well yeah, because the original commenter wasn’t referring to their memories of any period of time, because the period of time they’re referring to doesn’t exist.
Not true, even highly educated Roman and Greek elites would attend book readings. It was considered a leisure activity and was appreciated as the performance it was, same as today.
In fact today we have more reasons than ever to listen to audiobooks, the most significant of which is that it’s not legal nor advisable to read a physical book while driving a motor vehicle.
In-video sponsors are not even remotely the same thing as the ads YouTube puts on videos, but that being said no I’m not using SponsorBlock. YouTube premium has a button to skip in-video sponsors so I don’t need sponsor block.
Him being an “old man” would be predicated on his incorrect assumption that the act of having a book read to you is somehow new and is not as old as books themselves.
He’s just a moron lmao
What? No you don’t. Oral book readings predate regular book reading as a widespread practice by literally thousands of years.
It’s not pirating if you’re obtaining a video that they’re making available to you for free lmao.
Otherwise it would be “pirating” to just load up YouTube.com in your browser and watching any old video.
The seal of confession is protected by the first amendment as it’s a core tenant of the Catholic religion, and the U.S. government doesn’t have the authority to change religious doctrine of a religion that predates the country by millennia. There are decades of legal precedent for this so outside of a landmark Supreme Court ruling, it’s protected. If you were to violate the constitutional rights of these priests, you wouldn’t catch any more child abusers, you’d just be jailing people for their faith.
Also, the seal of confession is not “protecting people”. The church isn’t going to defend a child abuser, nor protect them. There is nothing to stop clergy from reporting child abusers to the authorities. It only protects speech shared during the sacrament of confession. If a priest were to find out that somebody is an abuser in any way other than through confession, they would report it the same as anyone else.