This is not Microsoft. I haven’t updated my plex software in over six months and it runs fine. Still, yes, I would expect updates to any software I purchase as new patches are needed for OS updates, etc. That shouldn’t be more than two updates a year for a given OS - if at all.

Selling a product, generating revenue, using revenue to improve products or create new products is how we used to run businesses.

If they’re unable to maintain software updates with the revenue they get, then they should discontinue support of less popular products.

As I’ve stated on the plex forum, plex is no longer a media management and consumption platform. It’s a video on demand service. That’s their prerogative and that’s fine. The issue is that they’re discontinuing a product that people have purchased and use on a regular basis. I paid money for a product and that product can no longer be used if I change the device I use that product on. They should have left the existing product alone and released something wholly new.

I bought a media management and consumption platform running on my own server using my own clients. For what reason do I need a relay service to watch content in my house on my server?

So what is the move for them?

Plex has a two-pronged VOD service. They have ad-supported “live television” and they have content to rent.

I don’t know if that’s enough to sustain them but I don’t really care. I’ve been a PlexPass owner for over ten years. I have only asked that they resolve bugs and made requests for things like proper organization of classical music (which they’ve explicitly stated they will not consider).

You do bring to light something I hadn’t considered; that they see Plex as a business model. From my perspective, I want to buy a fully developed product with the expectation of bug fixes and security patches etc over time. I genuinely can not think of a single thing the developers have added to the service that I’ve used in the past ten years.

So, what kind of business model charges money to do things that don’t have an apparent impact on the user experience?

Plex has been one of my most used applications in the past decade. However, it has its limitations and they are actively imposing more limitations on the experience in favor of “a sustainable business model”.

The issue is that their sustainable business model is interrupting the users’ sustained use of a platform they’ve already paid for. I’ve had to go through all of my devices and disable all auto-updates to ensure I do not get the “New Plex Experience”.

What we should be asking is why “selling a product” is no longer a business model.

Another longtime user here. If you haven’t already, you might want to disable autoupdates on all your devices. The “new experience” is not without its controversies.

And yet here we have an unbiased explanation about tariffs, how they would be worse for everyday Americans under Trump, and how Biden continued Trump’s previous tariffs.

I’ve been a little surprised by the commentary around Trump’s planned tariffs, with some “economists” saying they can’t explain why he would impose them. It’s like everyone has forgotten why tariffs exist at all. That’s not to say it’s a good thing or a bad thing but I’m disheartened that we’re not taking this opportunity to educate ourselves. It feels to me like people are playing stupid just to make Trump look bad.

I would suggest that if you’re following some organization who’s only intent on bashing Trump’s import tax and not bothering to explain what a tariff does, that you stop following that organization as a reputable news source.

I say this as someone who’s shocked that any American would ever consider Trump as president (then or now) and as someone who is fed up with the bullshit that fills our media and social feeds. We are all getting dumber.

Edit: So far, these comments are doing a decent job enforcing what I’m seeing. People don’t care about facts, only their own bullshit. Please don’t vote or comment on this post unless you’ve watched the video. That’s what we should be here for.

Awesome. Glad this got caught as the protections are built to do.

Are you legitimately asking a question that’s answered in the article you’re posted or are you promoting something?

Since you’re evidently unaware of what the Magna Carta is, it’s like the United States’ Bill of Rights. The Mueller Report is a report about a DOJ investigation into collusion with a foreign power to impact an election. There is no rational reason to mention them in the same statement, let alone the same sentence.

I’m thinking this may be an AI bot given the incoherence in the post.

You could very easily take a photo to show proof of who you voted for in order to get paid. Plus, voting records aren’t 100% private.

Legally, the argument that he’s specifically trying to pay people to vote for Trump would get thrown out of court.

I would personally argue that Trump is very much opposed to, or in favor of restrictions to, the first and second amendments (as is Musk) while Harris intends to uphold them. So, from my perspective, I see this as enticement to vote for Harris.

I would imagine that paying money to sign your petition is also problematic.

Title of article:

Trump Backer Elon Musk Accused of ‘Clearly Illegal Vote-Buying’.

I’m not sure what reality you all are a pat of. I’m just sitting here reading and commenting on what was shared. It is a fact that Musk is not buying votes. Had the article made the claim that “Musk pays registered voters to sign a petition”, that would be legit.

I find it frustrating that people want to call me out for calling out the media but no one wants to hold the media accountable - especially when it supports your existing narrative.

It is a fact that Musk is not buying votes. There is no exchange of money for proof of voting for anyone. He is potentially illegally asking people to sign a petition which requires they be a registered voter and giving them money for signing a petition. That’s the story.

Every article posted across the internet is full of misinformation and lies to promote existing narratives and agendas. People need to wake up and hold each other accountable for this. Not just when it’s in opposition to your feelings but also when it supports them.

So, not illegal vote buying. Correct?

So, not “vote-buying”.

OK… the exceptionally odd part of your response is that we’re commenting on a specific article speaking about this and you’ve linked to an entirely different web site. Do you work for the verge?

I would like to see some court cases related a requirement to be a registered voter to enter a sweepstakes.

Still, again, my point is regarding what is implied in this article which is that Musk is paying people to vote for Trump. You do agree that this is not the case, correct?

Edit: I think I get it. No one wants to hold the media accountable when they say something that enforces our existing opinions of people - even when it’s verifiably untrue.

So, while it’s readily apparent that Musk is not guilty of “Clearly Illegal Vote-Buying”, he has established something in which any registered voter in a handful of states can “pledge their support for the First and Second Amendments” and receive financial compensation. There is in fact no requirement to vote for either Trump or Harris nor to cast a vote in this coming election.

It would seem plausible, based on the US Code quoted in the article, that it’s not legal to require someone to be a registered voter to sign a petition and receive compensation. Frankly, I think people are grossly overlooking the fact that someone is paying someone to sign a petition to begin with. I would certainly hope that this is something law enforcement takes a look at.

However, the claim that Musk is paying people to vote for Trump is not at all factual. This would make this “Common Dreams” article misinformation - would it not?

You’re ignoring my question.

The article, which is quoting someone on twitter, states that what he’s doing is illegal because he’s offering to buy votes. This is in contrast to what the petition actually states. There is no requirement for you to vote for anyone at all in order to get paid and enter a lottery. That is, unless you can direct me to something that explicitly, in writing, supports your claim.

to buy your favor and join him in voting for Trump.

Where do you see this?

I don’t understand what’s being implied here.

The petition states, “By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments.”

It says nothing about buying votes, pledging to vote for a candidate, or providing any proof that you voted at all. The only requirement is that you are registered voter in one of a handful of states.

As a registered democrat in PA, what’s preventing me from signing the petition and getting some free cash? If I believe that voting for Harris is a vote to support the first and second amendments, which I fully do, what’s the problem?

Exactly. She was avoiding direct questions and Baier was trying to keep her on track. I wish more interviewers would do this.

Q: How many illegal immigrants would you say your administration has released into the country.
A: I agree that this is an important topic.
Q: Do you have a rough estimate?
A: The point is we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired.
Q: (since she’s not answering…) Your Homeland Security Secretary says about 6 million people.
This was just the preamble to his first question and she’s already speaking from her script.
Q: When you came in to office you undid a number of Trump border policies. Do you regret this decision?
A: We tried to pass some legislation. - Baier points out the six Ds who voted against the bill and that this has nothing to do with their decision to undo what Trump had in place.

Harris is the one avoiding the questions and interrupting him.

I think this is a legit question. Had she given a legit answer and been honest with the audience, Fox News viewers, maybe she would have gained some respect. I am definitely in support of Harris but you have to look at this from the vantage point of Fox News viewers. From their perspective, she failed. I would hope that from her campaign’s perspective, they see that she failed to reach the audience she was there to speak with.

usually, interviewers especially on Fox News are not interested in asking legitimately good questions, but rather asking “gotcha” questions to drum up attention.

In my experience, gotcha questions are outliers. Most of these sorts of interviews, and public debates, are composed of questions that are aligned with the viewer of that outlet. So when a politicians side steps the question asked, they’re rejecting the opinions and concerns of the audience. I can’t tell you how many times a “liberal” news outlet has interviewed a democratic candidate and the candidate fails to answer the question. Gotcha question or not, it pisses me off.

I disagree that the interviewer should allow the person to finish their thought. I prefer people to be direct when asked direct questions. This is not the time to speak broadly - that’s what your campaign ads are for, that’s what your social media is for, that’s what your stump speeches are for. This is the moment to speak directly to the concerns of the outlet’s audience - assuming they are in-good-faith questions.

Conservatives care about what conservatives think, as do moderates. There may be enough among them who might be swayed one way or the other depending on the dialog. The middle ground is where elections are won so what’s happening in these forums is not irrelevant. Moreover (and where my mind is spending a lot of time these days), how blind are people in liberal forums to the larger premise of what they’re observing and saying. People need to spend more time imagining what they’re reading / hearing is being said about the other candidate. I’d this were a clip of Anderson Cooper interviewing Trump, how would liberals and conservatives react? I imagine just the mirror of what we’re seeing now.

And, to be honest, I care about conservatives because they’re Americans. They’re my friends and neighbors and family members. They’re being mislead by politicians and manipulated by corporations. The further we push each other away from each other, the more we fail to embrace our commonalities, the more likely we are to actually face a civil war. Allowing misinformation to continue like this is going to lead to nine conservative justices. “They’re stupid” is not a good enough reason to write them off. The choices they make and the choices we make has an impact on the entire country now and for the foreseeable future. If you give a flying fuck about any young children in your family, you’d be a little more open to finding common ground with conservatives and calming the toxic atmosphere we’re living in.