zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
Rotten tomatoes is actually very useful if you know the magic formula:

* If tomatometer & audience score are within 5% of each other, you can trust the ratings to give you a decent indiciation of movie quality.

* If tomatometer is more than 15%+ higher than audience score, it means it's an artsy fartsy movie that critics like and movies don't.

* If audience score is 15%+ higher than tomatometer, it's a fun movie even if it's not oscar worthy. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/old_school is a perfect example)

>>ernest+d93
If a service becomes untrustworthy, it should be unseated as a credible source, so that it can be replaced by something else that is more credible. Lots of good businesses and ideas wither and die because of the populist sentiment of only supporting monopolies consumers often have have online.

We ritually act online as if trying to create workarounds for obviously corruptible services will make things better, but it simply doesn't. It only serves to keep rewarding companies that have sold us out, including the process of normalizing the sale and security compromise of our user data. Supporting bad apps and companies after breaches of trust only works to reward them and undermine reliability overall for ethical services and companies. Workarounds also enable companies to breach trust more and more over time as well... Class action lawsuits are also no consolation, as they only cost a fraction of the illicit gains a company makes on being willfully corrupt, and they mostly reward law firms, not victims.

I hope we change this workaround narrative, and start holding bad business accountable for it's schemes instead of embracing it as normalized behavior. LET THEM FAIL. :/