claudiop

Well, to begin with, both the watcher and the creator are clients of the platform. Both sides feel bound to it, even if both dislike it.

Then, YouTube premium is literally 20 machine coffees a month in my first world country. 15 if they're done by someone. You seem to be speaking "privileged minority".

Did you even consider that your formula doesn't even work for 90% of people? 6 figure salaries are a US thing, everywhere else you get taxes to pay for irrelevant shit like health. Part of those taxes are for retirement. Those are not optional and scale with the salary from like 10% if you're poor to like 70% if you're rich.

At whatever age retirement is, you get a payout that's (not linearly) proportional to how much you paid in taxes. That's the whole of Europe. Probably more complicated or anarchic elsewhere.

Even with a top 5% salary, you're not going to pile up all that much.

The problem is not this scheme. Is that there are not enough young people to support the elderly.

Also a curiosity about Portugal: A lot of people are starting to lie about not having a degree when they do so that they can get shit jobs more easily. Too many degrees around. (Most people go to college, even if they fail)

An homicide is an homicide before the court case for it is done. Just because some words also have legal definitions it doesn't mean that they're incorrectly used before the judge concluded them and the guilty party.

Maybe easier to visualise with assault. Assault happened from the moment the aggression happened, not from the moment the aggressor got convicted of it

As for the "no system is foolproof", you're thinking of implementations, not algorithms. An algorithm can indeed be something-proof. Most "known" algorithms are built on top of very strong mathematical foundations stating what is possible, what is not and what is a maybe.

As for the ads thing, Mozilla is not making a dime off this. It is not monetizable. They're basically expecting that by giving advertisers a fairly "benign" way to do their shenanigans they will stop doing things the way they currently do (with per-individual tracking).

The absolutists might say that there's no such thing as benign ads, however truth is that the market forces behind ads are big enough that you'd get website-integrity-bullshit rather ad-free web. Having tracking less ads is better than having a "this website only works in chrome" or "only without extensions" internet.

Is there any other possibility? Maybe. Is is reasonable to think that the moment tracking starts getting blocked em masse, we risk a web-integrity-bullshit +wherever-said-tracking-can-exist-only internet? I think so.

Good luck convincing Israel to fold up because I'm pretty confident you aren't going to convince Palestinians about that. Or are you advocating for some ol' two speed citizenship?

Well, those massive parking lots are a thing because 100% of the attendance comes in a car.

It happens that in European cities, the majority of people go to those mega-events events by public transit or Taxi.

Are you going to put parking lots just to burn up space? If that was the case, then no need for asphalt, trees absorb sound better than asphalt.

Lisbon's big arena is in a fast to reach part of the city that is surrounded by a lot of stores and offices and basically no housing. That's the way to do it. Is a 3 minute walk away from the subway.

Freedom of movement never was and never will be a thing outside of countries with similar standings in economy and policy.

There's the obvious problem #1) People rushing to whoever maximizes their welfare. There's this fine reason why plenty of illegal economic migrants do not settle for some first-world country that accepts them and keep going until they hit something like Germany.

Then you have #2) Societies do not exist without a place and no society should be forced to accept people that undermines it. France is secular and yet it allowed in plenty of people that are not. I'm not saying you must be secular to exist; I'm saying that you should not be going to a society you fundamentally disagree with and much less start imposing. And yet we both know what would happen if borders were open.

You also have #3) rich people can just buy out the nicest places and chop chop people the fuck out. A state putting up some barriers severely slows this process (which is happening anyway)

A bunch more reasons like paperwork, criminal record, ecology, yadda yadda.

With this said, if you fulfil stuff, you should definitely be able to get wherever you want. Ethnicity, social status ou whatever made up stuff should not be roadblocks. Even if it takes a year or two of screening and some sort of integration procedure.

I did not argue they didn't, I did argue that this was not a mob but a protest.

Did the cops approve the water things? They probably knew, just didn't pronounce as they probably thought nobody would care much (they're Spanish cops, not world cops, their cultural bias is what is considered harmful by Spaniards and those don't see water as a harm).

But if mob-things were to start happening (which could be the case if some tourist just started yelling something like "you should be thankful that I'm spending my money here") cops would halt that pretty fast. I personally don't see things escalating in any other way.

1. From a legal standpoint, this was a protest. I can pretty much assure you that the authorities knew that this was going to take place and were close by. Illegal protests get done pretty quickly. Just the fact that they are walking banners in the middle of a road is a clear giveaway.
2. The generality of what you said applies to both mobs and protests. You don't seem to have a problem with it happening in protests. Don't people get surrounded by protests? Don't people in protests carry objects that can be perceived to be guns?

I think it’s fair to say that football hooliganism is not unique to any particular place, and is a specific and unique problem

Yes, over-tourism and hooligans are disjoint problems. But if it is so cheap going to a place that you can just grab your fella drunkards and go you end up mixing them both in...weird ways.

Britain is not that rich anymore (and we aren't in 2011 anymore), however, during peak crisis (when the IMF rescued Portugal and almost had to do the same with Spain) we couldn't do much besides accepting anything that was bringing money, no matter how little. For some reason, the brits got used to to go to Algarve as "their" vaction spot, so much that this predates the tourist boom, and at this point in time they just straight up bought everything. You can't say no when your country is near bankrupt.

The 2008 financial crisis was a major turning point for this massified tourism. The "lazy southern people that don't want to work" had to accept any money that tourists could bring and accept any consequences. Partly due to this, there's this culture that tourists are immune to everything. If you think that hooligans are bad in a place with functioning cops, imagine them in a place that, at most, says "please don't do that" and lets you go, every single time. Even the Germans, which generally are strict rule followers, stop having any regard for simple laws.

That very same "lazy southern people that don't want to work" stereotype also got many people considering the northern Europeans to be entitled assholes. Not individually. There's not all that much xenophobia when dealing with individuals 1:1, but when considering them as a group of people, there's a lot of resentment. Germany, the UK and France being in crisis and facing the same problems we faced is giving some sweet sensation to a lot of people.

There's also the cultural idea that "when you're not in your town, you behave", even internally. People from Oporto have the same prejudice towards Lisbon people. "They come here and act like this is their place, chanting and whatever, twats" goes Portuguese to Portuguese, no need to add foreigners for that attitude to be a thing.

There's enough context to everything to write quite a few books. Nothing in these interactions are as simple as "people are annoyed at competition in their markets so they're pointing water guns".

the local government for approving those businesses to set themselves up on that street

There was the time period I just described where the governments could not have a say towards that + tragedy of commons. Every local government wants to have "the best behaved and richest tourists" so a race to the bottom it goes. Now it is a complete mess to fix the situation, especially since the Portuguese no longer own those places.

As a local government you can't go against the majority of your people, and the majority of people in Algarve are Brits and French. They own entire regions. Years and years of this environment cause that. Even in the Lisbon region, plenty of tourists buy properties because "wow, such nice weather, everything cheap", which they end up treating as investment because why wouldn't them?

There was this particularly damning "golden visa" scheme during the IMF days where you'd get Portuguese citizenship and a myriad of rights if you invested 250k (?) in real estate. A whole lot of people started doing investment tourism due to that and they're totally capitalizing on that.

The way I see it, there are two major classes of tourist in here. The rich fellas which bought the entire property market, with the richest of them tanking our water supplies with their golf courts and lobbying against any changes. And the bingo-card tourist which sees "50€ on Ryanair, nice! Honey, let's go to Portugal, it is a place in Spain that has some pubs just like home". You have a few other classes like the guys that actually enjoy discovering cultures and whatnot, but my personal experience tells me that there aren't all that many like that even though all of them will say that they're doing just that.

Now, none of this wall of text pointed at "firing water at people" as a solution; it just pointed a good deal of the context why other solutions are near impossible. However, in a way dissimilar to Portugal, Catalonia actually is a powerhouse. They can actually just limit the amount of people going there and succeed that way. But 1) business travellers are barely distinguishable from tourists 2) Madrid is a pain.

The whole point is that this is a very hard to solve mess. Most people don't know these details; they merely know that we have a "too many tourists; go away" attitude; they could be halfway decent and just respect it, unless they have some particular interest in the country. There's a trivial way to distinguish. We actually love to see people trying to speak Portuguese; even if they utterly fail; because this is enough to distinguish them from the 99%. This is how desperate we are for people that actually value anything in Portugal but the pictures and weather.

That can trigger people.

I don't consider ok to cause real panic to people. I also don't quite imagine that to be a common thing and I imagine that the crowd to stop if anyone starts looking not ok. That crowd is not trying to harm people at all, they're trying to get mediatic attention to spread a message that they need to take less tourists. That's what the first image in the article is saying (in Catalan). It is not saying "no tourists", it is asking for "reduction of tourism".

With this said, literally anything can be a trigger. A guy with a megaphone can very well be a trigger.

What if it’s not water?

The other fella I was arguing with said that acid attacks are a common thing in other parts of the world. I had zero clue. I also imagine that it would float this from "totally not a crime, just an annoyance" to "you're going to be locked behind bars". That's what I'd wish if someone did that; it is obviously not ok to give pain and lifelong consequences to someone who's maybe lacks consideration.

What if someone thinks it’s a real gun (even for a second)?

Have you looked at the pictures in the article? I don't quite think that people would confuse a crowd with those to be a crowd with guns. Nothing in the context matches out. Not the looks of people. Not the place because Iberia barely has guns.

If they come from a place where everything can be seen as a gun, they can vote for that not to be the case. We don't need to stack up the considerations to appease literally every possible culture and cultural problem in the world. Zero people who in here are afraid of guns (except for the colonial fighters).

If you're afraid of clowns, don't visit the circus.

And if they make an attempt to leave from some risk/fear (real or perceived), they can’t, because they are surrounded.

That would be the case for any other protest. Is independent of the water thing.

Mobs can be scary. They also tend to be very predictable. If your senses tell you that you have been hearing "fuck tourists" for the last 5 minutes and that there's a huge crowd coming in you direction, well, balance that our with your fear of crowds.

I think common sense would suggest that spraying people with water who are minding their own business

I'm not advocating for that being ok when devoid of context. Just like pointing a megaphone at some institution devoid of context will get you detained (we don't do "US's" version of freedom here; a protest that is not properly communication beforehand is forbidden for public security reasons).

If we put up some context to it, we're talking about targeting a demographic which does plenty of also-not-ok things. Does this mean that blind mobbism is ok? Nope. However, given that there's zero enforcement on both sides, this mob attitude is in a way to balance things rather-harmlessly in this precarious sittuation.

If laws were to be thoroughly enforced, many tourists would also be in trouble (eg. for loud noise after dark) their prices would be substantially higher (as it is generally believed that there's plenty of tax evasion and illegal properties in the sector). This means that the gov could definitely be doing things better and enforcing laws better. It is partially our fault because we're used to live in a lax system (which was mostly ok until this...).

threat of acid attacks

Talking to you was literally the first time I've heard of those. For some reason I don't get, London is unsafe. I hear about knifes and all kinds of shit in there but I don't see why that's the case. In the Iberian peninsula it is quite rare for anyone to assault you that way, even in proper robberies.

It’s not relevant to my point, which is that it’s not the fault of someone who goes to another country as a tourist.

As a tourist you are the one doing the decisions. The "let's pick this 50€ Ryanair over that 300€ whatever to a place that's not massified" was a decision.

I would equally criticise assaulting end consumers as a form of climate protest. Would you not?

I advocate for lesser evils. In climate matters I think that forcing costumers to pay for externalities would do the trick. Albeit, plenty of people would argue that to be worse than getting sprayed with water. Suddenly that 50€ flight becomes a 2500€ flight and then local tourism becomes much more enticing.

What’s YOUR suggestion?

If you put a flat tax, you harm business.
If you put a quota to it, you'd have the business of pretending that travelers are business people instead of tourists.
If you limit hosting to hotels, you'd get a tremendous market pressure for housing to go down to raise hotels (which is better than "local housing" for tourists as it is more efficient and doesn't fuck up with neighbors).
If you limit the amount of properties that can do so, you guarantee that no local is ever able to go anywhere else in their own country without a friend lending a sofa.
If you simply spam enough properties such that everyone fits, whenever the economy goes bad (/Covid) the country goes snap bankrupt.

As you can probably imagine, living in a country that suffers from this, I've heard plenty of debate. There's no perfect solution and the solutions that seem to be the closest to good are basically gentrification.

Showing tourists that they're not welcome is probably one of the actions that causes the lesser amount of harm (both to locals, businesses and tourists) as basically most other measures ensure that the best thing most people would be able to afford would be a few towns away from home.

I assume your personal carbon footprint is 0 in that case.

It is negative. I was living a very modest job and fired myself to voluntarily work for the transportation sector (eg. find ways to make public transit more enticing). The things I started doing were good so I eventually got paid for them. The last time I touched a plane was in 2014, I don't eat meat and I very rarely buy clothes. For some reason, society has this weird idea that following your conscience means living miserably.

"Oh, but then how will I visit Mars 3 times a year?" You do not. Traveling for leisure is not a god given right. I bet that most people have fairly nice towns not that far from home, and if they do not, why not vote locally to create nice towns locally? Architecture was a concept that was murdered in the 60's but we can redo things with time.

The farthest I've went was literally Barcelona and my vacations start with the question "where can I get to by train in less than a day?". No government is forcing me not to be an asshole, I can behave without hard rules. This way, If I ever need to go to... say... to Norway, for some researchers conference or whatever, I can take a plane, knowing that it pollutes a lot, yet without an heavy conscience because it is a one off, not the semestral dose of planes and poverty incentives.

And you can say "man, that's just your opinion", but the fact was that before massification people saw consideration for others as something important. They had different ideas of what was wrong or right, yet except for the odd asshat, people had the "I'm not going to overfish this lake because other people might also want to fish" attitude. That opinion that "not being considerate is not wrong" is just silly to my ears and is precisely what is fucking up the planet.

I did that because I enjoy Spanish culture

And yet that's generally not the case. If I had to place a bet, a lot of people that come to Portugal don't even know that it is not Spain. My parents work in the mail service and you have plenty of mail addressed like "Lisbon, Spain". They couldn't give less of a fuck about the place, simply figured that it was cheap and checked travel bingo card on it.

Are there considerate tourists that actually do care for the place and want to be behaved? Plenty. But the ratios are completely fucked. If you talk to people that work in the tourism sector they will point out that they are very VERY tired of dealing with the asses. What's their percentage? I have zero clue and this is not something measurable, but I personally had plenty of encounters that didn't quite go the way society should go.

Last year the pope came here and with him a lot of followers. The fuckers had free transportation passes and yet had to break transportation barriers and block off locals because they were all too busy chanting.

That was at the time of my last vacation. I got myself in a train to Spain to miss that and the majority of people I do know did equivalent trips. That's how saturated the environment is. Every time a big wave comes (pope, sport's event, Taylor Swift), we simply move away because the city is otherwise going to become unlivable.

Good thing I mentioned Taylor Swift because that's a prime demo of tourism being an asshole factory. She came here a few months ago. She was mass attended by Americans. People figured tickets in Portugal to be cheaper than wherever they live so they just flew here. Fuck the environment or the Portuguese being able to attend anything where they live without having to pay a 300% premium, right?

That is a xenophobic attack. And you are currently advocating for it.

I advocate for whatever the utilitarian solution is and I do understand the concept of people having feelings when a loved one becomes homeless.

If sending a few hundred tourists to space makes live muuuuch more bearable for millions, then do it.
If having hundreds of locals annoyed makes the lives of millions of tourists great and that leaves the coffers full such that the locals can be compensated, then great.

It doesn't always need to go against tourists. The problem with tourists is that the current balance is not utilitarian at all. Millions are being left without a country they call home in the name of some other millions being able to prop up their vacation ego. This is a big consequence in exchange for a small reward.

And I’m finding it a bit perplexing that you are simultaneously advocating for that while also talking about making decisions based on conscience.

As I stated, I'm an utilitarian. I advocate for whatever maximizes the global happiness, sustainability et all. Someone getting a miserable life requires a lot of people getting very very happy to balance.

A good part of my interference to "water attacks" is because I don't see myself getting any more fired up over them than I would over people chanting "go away". The water part, for me, a someone without any PTSD, it like "ehh, ok". Might not be for other people, but that was not the way I guessed it. I did not imagine a world with acid attacks nor did imagine getting someone's ass to my face in public transit to be any less "assault" than being sprayed with droplets of water. I reckon that is is simply my perception.