Gravitywell.xYz

I dont think its a huge leap to think artists would rather you be able to buy their music once and make a $ instead of stream it from a sevice that pays them next to nothing.

They tried to fuck me on a return once and after a month of it sitting in limbo i filed and won a dispute though my card provider instead.

Matter of fact i think it was over ram too, but it was over a year ago.

Well if you genuinely care about seeing artists get paid the ones who need it most tend to make their conent available already for free on bandcamp or similar services, and have physical albums and merch you can buy.

Last night i spent $10 on 3 albums on bandcamp, those artists each made more on that single purchase then they would from thousands of streams.

Spotify making less (or more) money does not trickle down to artists on a per stream basis.

Dont be a corporate bootlicker. Say it with me now, "If buying isnt owning Piracy is not stealing. "

Its mostly Sony, UMG, and all the other leeches who would get paid less for their share holders.

I dont feel like editing the image but imagine the guy with most of the cookies in this picture was UMG and the artists are the guy on the right.

Ive been wary if firefox since wheneved it was they decided it was okay to shove “pocket” into the browser. These days i dont see mozilla as anything other than anti monopoly insurance for google, which they obviously dont need anymore.

Mozilla as a company has just been a decade of one poor decision after another adding more bloat and doing nothing meaningful to counter chromes near monopoly.

Vivaldi isnt perfect and brave has its baggage, but at least they actually include adblocking out of the box, a feature that just about everyone wants. Sure its easy enough to install an addon to firefox for it but the fact that you even have to do that should tell you everything you need to know about who mozilla is actually working for.