By creating way more CO2 in the process to further accelerate a climate disaster?

Your heart is in the right place - just the execution is wrong.

If reviews don't flip back to positive in response (seeing as they only went negative in anticipation of this policy being enforced), then we have no way of indicating our dissatisfaction next time Sony do something undesirable.

But don't you see how doomerism contributes to the problem?

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing, but there are more good people than evil.

The trouble is, evil is great at rallying evil and demoralising good. That's why we have to fight back.

Positive change is possible if we work together.

Stop. Please stop. Doomerism compounds the problem, it is not a neutral stance.

Has irreparable damage already been done? Yes.

Will it be worse if we don't do anything as soon as possible? Yes. And each moment that we don't do the thing, it gets a little bit worse.

But each moment we do do the thing, it gets a little bit better.

The Earth will relatively be 1.5°, likely 2°C hotter, regardless of what actions are now taken. But 2°C hotter is far, far preferable to 4°C.

Everything we do as individuals and societies matters. I understand it feels daunting, and I'm not really advocating for you to drive less or eat less meat, because ultimately these changes won't be driven by individuals making the choices.

However, please please please support and push, protest, fight for societal changes for us collectively to drive less, eat less meat, and corporate carbon taxation.

I get that it's not necessarily simple, however... Firstly, surely streaming companies could push for a standard formatting to make their lives easier. And second, why does a track that was previously explicit suddenly start playing as the clean version one day? Why is the data for it continually being changed?

Oh my God, thank you for the confirmation.

But I don't understand - it's inconsistent. Some stuff will be censored and others won't be?

Cool.

Sorry, you're quite right - I misread it to begin with.

This paper suggests you're spot on that they're not as profitable as other large companies, but they're still making an awful lot of money on top of the necessary costs.

Except as highlighted, if the drug didn't make a return on investment it wouldn't be made. That can be true for government funded research, it's not necessary to have a profit margin on top.