It doesn’t sound like they typically check for most items, just the expensive ones and the date on the receipt. That makes it even more theater and less practical.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that if you know someone stole something, you can stop them. Under the prerequisite conditions section, it is stated that:

The shopkeeper has reasonable grounds to suspect the particular person detained is shoplifting.

Wouldn’t that mean that someone who has done nothing suspicious other than refusing the check would not be giving anyone reasonable grounds to stop them? Or does just refusing count as reasonable grounds and make the check effectively legally mandatory?

someone who can is waiting(and the salarymen can, shopkeeper’s privilege apparently in the US)

Can you elaborate on this? I’ve never heard of it.

Captchas are actually a great tool for reducing spam and botting. Depending on the platform, they can directly benefit you. Captchas and manual approval for Lemmy account signups are directly responsible for the lack of spambots on this platform. The problem is that captchas got co-opted to force people to give companies free AI training data.

It literally costs them money to make YouTube worse so that you can pay them to make it better again. NewPipe go brrrrrr

“But I don’t want to eat the moldy cabbage on the ground outside!”

“Okay, do you have an alternative, or are you just gonna whine? Eat up!”

They probably did this specifically because people were upvoting our favorite plumber.

It should be illegal to revoke or modify people’s purchases. All games should be able to be kept and played using the version you bought it at except maybe MMOs due to technical reasons. Forced updates and DRM need to be outlawed.

That’s the sad truth.

I think we need laws against platforms censoring discussion of their rivals, particularly with shadow bans and shadow delistings.

We need legislation against the unending encroachment upon our daily lives by advertisers.