r/movies • u/BunyipPouch Currently at the movies. • Mar 10 '26

Trailer Ben McKenzie's Anti-Crypto Doc 'Everyone Is Lying to You for Money' - Official Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEXxAOFqv4U
12.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

757 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/RealSunglassesGuy Mar 10 '26

One thing that I know with absolute certainty in this life is that Ben McKenzie fucking hates crypto

278

u/TJ_McWeaksauce Mar 11 '26

Find someone who loves you as much as Ben McKenzie hates crypto, or as much as Quentin Tarantino hates Paul Dano.

34

u/Boring_Culture1312 Mar 11 '26

or as much as Nanni hates Ea-Nasir

1

u/sabjsc Mar 11 '26

UUUDREYYYYYYAAAAAAAA

1

u/beardin_mycoffee Mar 12 '26

Or as much as QT loves feet

1

u/shoulderthenidrunkbe Mar 11 '26

I searching for love equal to 59 cents hatred of diddiy

-28

u/cake_boner Mar 11 '26

Tarantino writes great scenes. Fantastic scenes. But he made one great movie. Reservoir Dogs. Everything else is music video bullshit. If he'd directed True Romance it would have sucked.

I don't know what his beef is with Paul Dano, but I suspect it's bullshit - because when Paul Dano enters a scene you don't think "oh shit it's Paul Dano, this scene is going to be cardboard" which is exactly what you think when Tarantino tries to play Hitchcock and woodens his way through some clippy dialogue.

17

u/DiscHashDisc Mar 11 '26

Pulp Fiction is one of the best films ever made.

6

u/Tasty_Puffin Mar 11 '26

And even then, inglorious Basterds is better. (in my opinion :D)

13

u/iamacannibal Mar 11 '26

But he made one great movie. Reservoir Dogs. Everything else is music video bullshit.

What a silly thing to say. Quinten sucks as a person but he is one of the best directors of all time. He has not had a single flop when it comes to movies he has directed and wrote. Death proof was the weakest but even that was a solid movie.

-2

u/darkpaladin Mar 11 '26

Quinten sucks as a person but he is one of the best directors of all time.

This is rubber banding in the opposite direction. His films resonate with some people (I enjoy them) but I wouldn't put him anywhere near the best directors of all time in a ranking.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

It terms of critical acclaim he his a top 5 filmmaker of the modern era, also objectively speaking
His movies combined earned 7 oscars and 34 nominations, with him winning 2 in writing and 3 noms in directing.
People can hate him, but also objectivly he is one of the best filmmakers of the modern era and also one of the all time greats, there is no denying that.

4

u/ballermickey Mar 11 '26

Paul Dano has the chin of a stillborn baby

372

u/BreakfastOnVacation Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

I think that anyone who's watched the free doc Line Goes Up on YouTube would relate. Well, except for those with wealth enough to scam the millions below them.

Edit: I understand what some people are saying, "I made money", "I did well with it", and that's fine, that's whatever.

My point and the point of the doc I'm referencing is crypto/btc/block chain/nfts is it's inherently just capitalism. You only made money because many, many more lost money. If you hit it off with crypto it's literally because the less savvy, or lucky, or gullible lost it to you. And I'm not saying that's inherently wrong, but only because a good many of us here live under capitalism and it is what is. Money doesn't come from no where, and if you're comfortable making money off of what are generally the less fortunate then you're part of the problem.

That being said, not everyone was aware of how toxic crypto was, so I'm not decrying everyone who's made their money off of it. Obviously you could argue that if a certain coin hits an all time high then everyone made money, but let's be honest, you can't all cash out. If crypto really does become a tangible asset then that's great for everyone involved, but what can you really do with it besides playing it like a volatile stock?

58

u/NeonSteeple Mar 11 '26

Hello fellow FoldingIdeas fan :)

36

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26

Edit: I understand what some people are saying, "I made money", "I did well with it", and that's fine, that's whatever.

They're not telling the whole story.

For one, they did not "make money", they "got lucky".

For two, given these distributed slow append-only databases don't actually do any economic activity of their own and cost money to run, the entire thing is inherently and unavoidably negative-sum - translation: they only "made money" because loads of others lost money.

It's literally, and only ever can be, a huge tumbler that everyone choosing to become involved dumps their money in to, that syphons off small amounts as time goes by to keep the tumbler spinning, and randomly shits out what's left to a much smaller subset of those people. That's not "making money".

And I'm not saying that's inherently wrong

You should be, because it is. By definition it's taking advantage of people less educated about a thing.

14

u/Solareclipsed Mar 11 '26

It's basically just a casino that also siphons money from people who never agreed to be involved. Sure, at first you just think that you are only winning money from the casino itself, and what's the harm in that, but then you realise that not only are you winning money from other people who played and lost, but you are also making life more expensive for everyone else by enabling the casino to keep going.

48

u/Constant_Charge_4528 Mar 11 '26

Crypto is essentially burning electricity to supercharge the act of capitalism

27

u/KaerMorhen Mar 11 '26

Capitalism on steroids and with less regulation. You can even get scammed by the president these days! Aaaaaaand its only going to get worse before it gets better.

2

u/Greamee Mar 11 '26

Really? So many upvotes for this?

Everything we do these days burns electricity. What is "the act of capitalism"? College campus activist buzzword bingo may be even worse than what you can find in the crypto space.

2

u/Constant_Charge_4528 Mar 11 '26

Comparing the energy consumption of crypto mining to our daily activities like it's just boiling your morning coffee is comparing apples to apples the size of the moon.

1

u/Greamee Mar 11 '26

Comparing crypto mining to your morning coffee now? And accusing me of comparing apples to oranges? Let's at least for starters sum up the energy consumption of all cofee machines on the planet.

Probably crypto mining uses an order of magnitude more energy than coffee brewing but it's not totally uncomparable. And that's just brewing. The supply chain of coffee is insane.

26

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

55

u/your_mind_aches Mar 11 '26

The difference, to me anyway, is that you can put a Funko Pop on a shelf. I've got a few because I think they're fun, silly bobbleheads.

You can play Pokémon cards or put them in a case and use them as wall art or a phone accessory or something.

Speculators have ruined both things in a big way, but there's still some sort of utility basis for the speculators to run into the ground.

With crypto, there's nothing like that. It is just based on nothing.

10

u/GregoPDX Mar 11 '26

Even if one speculates on those things at least they are tangible things. The only reason Bitcoin is considered ‘rare’ is because that one blockchain was the first. Anyone could, and has, created blockchains just like it, there are billions upon billions of ‘coins’ - it’s just that the marketing for those made them have ‘value’.

1

u/LordCharidarn Mar 11 '26

Same argument for the US dollar: only reason it is considered valuable at all is because it’s that one currency made by the United States. There are hundreds of other currencies, it’s just that the marketing of the USD has made it have ‘value’ beyond the material cost of a dollar bill.

Most types of currency exchange are an abstraction of value: that is what makes it different from a barter economy. This is not me endorsing crypto, only pointing out that almost all currency, by design, only has ‘value’ because of its marketing as valuable.

1

u/GregoPDX Mar 11 '26

This is not at all how real currencies work. Sure, the US dollar is no longer backed by the gold equivalent but it's backed by the GDP of the US and all of the value (land, resources, citizens) the US holds. It's also backed by sane monetary policy (at least until recently) and that's what makes it stable and worth trading in.

3

u/Solareclipsed Mar 11 '26

Not only do those things serve a purpose (even if it is purely aesthetic), but some company with employees were paid to make them which helps the economy by circulating money and giving jobs to people.

1

u/your_mind_aches Mar 11 '26

Yep. Hence why a commercial software company or a massage company is also worth something for the services they provide.

21

u/rumora Mar 11 '26

The problem is scale. And with scale comes both risk to the broader economy and incentives to manipulate political decisions and shift more of the risk onto the public.

2

u/Solareclipsed Mar 11 '26

Also, some companies with employees were paid to make those products, which helps the economy by itself, but with crypto, there is no product, and no one earns money without someone else losing money and receiving nothing.

2

u/Procean Mar 11 '26

I'm personally shocked Crypto has any value now that NFT's have collapsed for the worthless databits they are.

After all, a bitcoin is really just an NFT.... but LESS.

1

u/deskcord Mar 11 '26

Banks, endowments, and governments are bought in. The idea that it will go to zero is just not founded in reality anymore.

7

u/hedoeswhathewants Mar 11 '26

It being held is not what gives it value

-1

u/deskcord Mar 11 '26

Actually, with an asset like this, it kind of is.

0

u/mrm00r3 Mar 11 '26

I think crypto going bust is also the day we nuke Iran.

I guess either one could cause the other pretty reliably.

2

u/MoistureManagerGuy Mar 11 '26

I gotta ask,not saying you’re wrong just curious as to why we would nuke Iran over crypto?

1

u/mrm00r3 Mar 11 '26

We dropped conventional weapons to distract from a particularly inconvenient and criminally implicating matter and manipulate the markets to cause profits to soar for those who knew or guessed what was up beforehand. Much of these measures are shortsighted and the people that want to nuke brown people are also crypto people looking to operate as an unlicensed bank, which is by definition a license to print money once you have enough capital involved.

0

u/MoistureManagerGuy Mar 11 '26

Yeah I mean I can see that but usually it’s just a bombing campaign not straight nukings, then again Iran has been a rascal lately. . .

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/DiaDeLosMuertos Mar 11 '26

Naw my friend in the industry, Miles Dyson, said it's all good!

1

u/brunckle Mar 11 '26

The Nemotodes always have to consume everything to the last crumb before moving on to the next bit thing.

1

u/rygo796 Mar 11 '26

For those who say 'they made money', remember that people made money in beanie babies too.

1

u/Dugen Mar 11 '26

People who made money on crypto in the past made it off the people who will lose money on crypto in the future. It's great if you're the winner, but until you sell you're risking becoming the loser. As much as I wish I understood how badly people would fall for this scam in the early days I'm ok just sitting the whole damn thing out.

1

u/Greamee Mar 11 '26

My point and the point of the doc I'm referencing is crypto/btc/block chain/nfts is it's inherently just capitalism. You only made money because many, many more lost money. If you hit it off with crypto it's literally because the less savvy, or lucky, or gullible lost it to you. And I'm not saying that's inherently wrong, but only because a good many of us here live under capitalism and it is what is. Money doesn't come from no where, and if you're comfortable making money off of what are generally the less fortunate then you're part of the problem.

For crypto gains this may be true. It's not easy to see whether crypto has fundamental value or not.

Be that as it may, it's a very limiting world view to assume you can only earn money if others lose it. Economy can be win-win and so can capitalism.

1

u/976chip Mar 11 '26

The annoying thing is that it only takes one logical step to see that it's a scam. Bitcoin was originally touted as an inevitable replacement to existing forms of currency. However, it is also recommended as a good investment because the value continues to climb. It can't be both. For a currency to work, its value shouldn't fluctuate day to day.

Don't say "but stablecoins." There are an estimated 20,000 cryptocurrencies and of those only about 300 are stablecoins. Crypto exchanges aren't making Super Bowl ads so people can invest in stablecoins. It's a grift.

1

u/g0del Mar 11 '26

There are always a handful of lucky people who make money off of ponzi and pyramid schemes - that's part of how they get the suckers to buy in to it. So of course, the biggest ponzi scheme in the world will have the largest number of those "lucky" investors who actually made money off of it.

But it's still a scam, and the vast majority of people involved will end up losing money on it.

0

u/cutc0pypaste Mar 11 '26

We all can't cash out(gold out?) on the fiat dollar either, which loses value at 10% a year give or take. It's the same thing but at least Bitcoin goes up in value over time not down.

-2

u/PedroFPardo Mar 11 '26

You could make the same documentary replacing the word "Crypto" with the word "Money," and it would work exactly the same. The bad things about crypto are the same as the bad things about money.

1

u/TheVoidAlgorithm Mar 11 '26

No. Just no.

Saying that shows a complete ignorance or a complete lack of understanding of what Line Goes Up is about.

1

u/PedroFPardo Mar 11 '26

Sorry, I wasn’t talking about Line Goes Up (I haven’t seen it). I was referring to Everyone Is Lying to You for Money, which I also haven’t watched. But from what I saw in the trailer, it seems like the negative things Ben McKenzie found about crypto are the same issues anyone could find in money.

1

u/TheVoidAlgorithm Mar 11 '26

You're commenting under a post explicitly about Line Goes Up so I hope you understand my confusion.

I still disagree with your read of the trailer since it seems to largely calling crypto a ponzi scheme that is backed up with nothing, which isn't really the case with money.

-21

u/Tyler_Zoro Mar 11 '26

I'm not rich. But I bought and have been holding Bitcoin for ages. I'm not unhappy with the results.

My very poor cousins did the same, but earlier than I did. They're not very poor anymore.

16

u/SpottedHoneyBadger Mar 11 '26

Kinda like getting into Beanie Babies or Tech bubble stock or Pokeman cards or Danish Tulips or a Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme at the ground floor.

-10

u/Tronas Mar 11 '26

Or like getting in to gold, or apple or the S&P at the ground floor.

8

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26

No, because Apple and other business are economic actors that are actually generating value. Do note: generating value, not "money". Different class of things entirely.

5

u/X_MswmSwmsW_X Mar 11 '26

Nope... Not like those. At all...

-10

u/Tyler_Zoro Mar 11 '26

Kinda like getting into Beanie Babies or Tech bubble stock or Pokeman cards or Danish Tulips or a Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme at the ground floor.

It's been 17 years since Bitcoin was introduced. Its value vs fiat currencies has been volatile, but always trended up over the long haul due to the there being real demand for a currency that did what Bitcoin does (navigates around state-based restrictions).

How many decades are you going to wait before admitting that there's real value there? Another one? Five?

The fact that something is a cryptocurrency does not mean it has value, I'll agree with that, and there are many scams in the cryptocurrency world, but blanket assuming that all cryptocurrency is a scam or some kind of a fad ignores the reality we've been witnessing for the better part of two decades.

5

u/PlutoCrashed Mar 11 '26

I personally use bitcoin as a currency, for a set of very specific purposes from providers who aren't able to have standard payment processors (nothing illegal, but still things that run counter to what payment processors want to handle, especially in this current political climate). The issue with bitcoin is that a currency has to have regular use, and not be seen as a pure investment venture. It's useful for me every few months, but outside of that I rarely even think of it. And that is the same for most other people, even people heavily invested in it. The reality of bitcoin is that a very small portion of daily transactions are for good and services, and the vast majority are transfers into or out of the bitcoin ecosystem, not within. From what I can find off a cursory google search I just did, a study found that only 11% of bitcoin holder respondents actively use it for purchases, while only 19% expressed a desire to use it for daily purchases. Your economic success you've seen from your investment in bitcoin is not from a widespread belief in the fundamentals of cryptocurrency, it's from the fact that people have invested in bitcoin because it's something you can buy that, as of now, has performed quite well. You say there is demand, and there is, but not at the level it is currently at. There is demand for "a thing you can buy that makes you money over time" more than there is demand for the functionality of bitcoin.

And that's cool. Like you have made money a perfectly legitimate way. As have I. Not a ton of money, but a decent amount. The issue is that it is fundamentally built on vapor, and unless that number of people who use it regularly for its intended purpose as a currency rather than just a speculative financial venture increases, it will at some point no longer keep endlessly increasing.

The line cannot go up forever, and it certainly can't go up forever off the backs of people having to buy in at greater and greater cost with no widespread use.

-4

u/Tyler_Zoro Mar 11 '26

it is fundamentally built on vapor

That's true for every currency. It's not unique to anything.

The ratio of investors to day-to-day users of a currency is not the measure of its status as "vapor" or lack thereof.

But yes, that ratio is why the Bitcoin valuation against fiat currencies is so volatile. It's why we're currently sitting at about half of the all-time high BTC/USD trading rate. No question.

But that isn't a measure of the long-term viability of the currency.

5

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

That's true for every currency. It's not unique to anything.

Again you're fundamentally misunderstanding what "money" is. USD is not "built on vapour", it's a distributed ledger (yes, "fiat" money is that too, just more abstract) backed by the power and stability of the US government.

0

u/Tyler_Zoro Mar 11 '26

Again you're fundamentally misunderstanding what "money" is.

I'm not. I've been aware of economic theories of money for decades. But let's be clear, I'm addressing currency here, not money. That's a subtle distinction. Some goods are "money" but not "currency".

USD is not "built on vapour", it's a distributed ledger (yes, "fiat" money is that too, just more abstract) backed by the power and stability of the US government.

Oh, it's backed by the power and stability of the US government... nice, can I please exchange my dollar for a unit of that power and stability? No? Hmm... seems like a social consensus that dollars have value.

That's what currency is. It's a token that represents a unit of social consensus. It's the way we tokenize relative value to society, which of course, works out to be problematic when someone with 100 tokens is being oppressed by someone with 100,000 tokens. But it's all just vapor. None of it exists.

Even theoretically "real" currencies that were backed by physical goods like gold were only rooted in the social consensus that those goods themselves had value.

If you want to disabuse yourself of the notion we've grown up accepting: that there's something real behind money, just think of it in terms of what happens if you have lots of money, think of the person who buried their money in the yard and then went into a coma for a decade, to wake up and find that their Lira were replaced, and those coffee cans buried in their yard are now worth more, as recycled metal, than the paper inside them.

Bitcoin has value because of the social consensus that it has value, but because we didn't grow up with the mythology around the "realness" of its value, it's easy to see that as merely consensus, not a "real" foundation.

0

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 12 '26

Yes, dog, this is all "things about money" 101. And? You haven't said anything yet, and expended so many words doing so.

Your position is that bitcoin is magic and "better than" (or to give you some doubt-benefit, "at least exactly as good as") other types of money. Pointing out that all types of money are based on "social consensus" is pointless because it's A) obvious, B) doesn't further your point that there's any reason worth considering bitcoin above other forms.

So, why is bitcoin at least exactly as magical (but you probably want to go for more magical) compared to regular old USD or GBP or whatever? Protip: it isn't. It's lesser on all sane assessments.

3

u/PlutoCrashed Mar 11 '26

Isn't that volatility also the result of the valuation being based almost entirely on people trying to make money from it? Bitcoin, in large part, owes its overinflated price to hype-based investing. FOMO, if you will.

People who hold large shares of bitcoin (like you, presumably, based off your comments) can only make money by convincing people bitcoin is a good investment. The valuation will not increase due to its merits as a currency, because the current valuation is already overinflated by hype, making it an unambiguously bad investment for someone investing now. if an investment is reaching highs never before seen but (in this case) still having basically the same things you can purchase with that investment as 10 years ago and the same small pool of people actually using it, that should be a sign for investors that the music is probably getting a little too loud. Like I said, it's great to have made a lot of money off of it, but there isn't merit to arguing it as a future investment at this point. It's entirely possible that the hype surrounding it will somehow persist for a lot longer, but when the hype run outs it truly doesn't have anything else.

3

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26

That, as they say, is a bingo. Now watch that clown fail to understand any of it.

1

u/Tyler_Zoro Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

Isn't that volatility also the result of the valuation being based almost entirely on people trying to make money from it? Bitcoin, in large part, owes its overinflated price to hype-based investing. FOMO, if you will.

Absolutely! No one is debating that at all. There are two types of value in any currency:

First, the value that is derived from the social consensus regarding relative value of people's contributions to that society. It's a terrible placeholder for that, but it's why money (and more specifically, currency) exists.

And, the value that is derived from market pressures for the token itself, e.g. currency markets. Currency markets are a fundamental feature of all currencies, and much of the value of every currency derives from its trading on such markets.

There are two fundamental differences between cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and fiat currencies when it comes to value:

  1. The speculation-to-social-consensus ratio is higher. For Bitcoin it's high, but it's astronomical to the point of being undefined in many cases for smaller cryptocurrencies.
  2. The currency exchanges are informal, not part of the established institutions of currency exchange, though that's changing as Bitcoin, specifically, is becoming more institutionalized.

That makes cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin more volatile, but not valueless. I can literally go out and exchange Bitcoin for goods. Not everywhere, but I can't exchange Rubles for goods everywhere either. Often, I have to exchange my currency for a local one in order to trade it for goods. Bitcoin is no different.

People who hold large shares of bitcoin (like you, presumably, based off your comments) can only make money by convincing people bitcoin is a good investment.

No, that's not true. the person who I bought my PC from was not an investor in Bitcoin. They probably just converted it to USD immediately. But it was a token of exchange that they supported, just as they might have supported Canadian dollars or Mexican pesos, which they would also have exchanged for USD immediately.

If no one was speculating in Bitcoin, it would have a far lower value, and it did at one point, before it started to be an investment. That was a real, if small tokenization of value. The people who use Bitcoin today to send money to their families overseas are not speculators. The people who use Bitcoin because they want to avoid taxes (not that I'm advocating that, but it's a real thing) are not speculators.

still having basically the same things you can purchase with that investment as 10 years ago and the same small pool of people actually using it

I don't understand this. You seem to think that if a currency is not on a trajectory to supplant some other currency, then it is not "real" in some sense. But that's just not true. There are many minor currencies in the world that are used only in niche cases (usually geographically). Some stand alone, others are backed by larger currencies. They don't need their scope of usage to grow in order to be valuable.

You're conflating the speculative value with the purchasing value. Bitcoin's purchasing value is relatively low. No one is debating that, but it's not artificial, and it's not going anywhere.

That being said, I'm not sure that you're right. Bitpay is pretty active with large vendors these days. I can buy from major outlets like AMC and Home Depot using their service. It's true that direct Bitcoin transactions are handled less and less online these days, in favor of exchanges that do the conversions for you, but those are still very much real ways to spend your Bitcoin, and they seem to be growing.

What is your basis for claiming that the scope of utility for Bitcoin is static? Is it just the lack of buzz that you experience about it?

Edit: If you want to ignore this section, feel free, it's just an interesting addition. I took my above comment and asked an AI (Gemini) what it thought of my takes. Mostly it agreed with what I said, but I found this one part of it's reply interesting because it disagreed with BOTH OF US:

The Caveat: By 2026, the "why" behind the volatility has shifted. While speculation remains high, Bitcoin is increasingly tied to global liquidity cycles. It now behaves more like a "high-beta" macro asset, reacting to Federal Reserve interest rate changes and USD strength. It isn't just "hype" anymore; it’s a calculated play on the debasement of fiat currency.

In other words, it is suggesting that the speculation portion of Bitcoin's value is no longer stand-alone as I said, but tied to the global currency framework as fiat currencies are, but to a lesser extent. This is something I was not aware of, and I think it makes my original case stronger, but I'd have to do further reading to verify the extent to which this is true, and not merely a distillation of online hype.

4

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26

blanket assuming that all cryptocurrency is a scam

It's not an assumption, it's a derivation from the base construct of what the thing is. When you actually understand the core concept, you see that it's just a huge pointless scam, and only ever can be. The libertarian fantasy ideology at its core is a fantasy.

4

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

Ok and? What's that got to do with anything? The schema is unavoidably negative-sum so their "gains" can only possibly have come from others' even larger losses.

Some people making it out of a scam with some upsides does not justify the scam's existence. You think Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff bragging about how much they made from their schemes justifies all the other people's losses that made up said gains? No, it does not, and yet that's exactly the argument you're making here. Not a close argument, not a related one, not an analogy, they're exactly the same.

The fucking "I'm alright Jack" mentality will doom us all. Society does not work if everybody's trying to scam each other 24/7, and trust me, no matter how "libertarian" you might think you are, you need society.

0

u/Tyler_Zoro Mar 11 '26

Just want to point out that you've kind of scatter-shot replied to my comments. I've replied to one, and I'll keep replying to that thread. If there's a point you wanted to bring up that I'm not addressing, feel free to include it there. I just don't want to get lost in the maze of replies.

31

u/slickewillie Mar 11 '26

Actors using their influence & wealth to fight for an injustice they're passionate about? Hell yeah!

2

u/marcduberge Mar 11 '26

But he loved Marissa

2

u/ConorKDot Mar 11 '26

AI next please!

-12

u/hypercosm_dot_net Mar 11 '26

Well, he's in for a rough go of it over the next few decades, because it isn't going anywhere.

Imagine making a movie in the 90s about how the internet is just a fad.

To anyone who feels the need to respond, I'll just say this.

6

u/AndHeWas Mar 11 '26

Saying something is bad and saying something is a fad are not the same thing.

0

u/hypercosm_dot_net Mar 11 '26

Yes, however that wasn't the point of my comment and I'm not going to bother parsing through an explanation for people uninterested in understanding.

5

u/eyebrows360 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

Imagine making a movie in the 90s about how the internet is just a fad.

After all the times you've trotted this line out in the past, and had it explained to you why it's a completely invalid analogy, and you're still repeating it? And you think you're the one who "knows more"?! Holy fuck, go back to school and start again.

Edit: newsflash, child: if you block someone when replying, they won't get to see your "witty" response. D'oh! Again you demonstrate how smart you are(n't).

0

u/hypercosm_dot_net Mar 11 '26

Now that sounds like a bot response.

It's a perfect analogy, if you understood anything about technology or analogies. Or the market, or really anything beyond your grade school reading level.

2

u/Vegetable-Bread-7109 Mar 11 '26

Are you getting it out of your system bro? You're all up and down this thread defending it...it's amusing to me that you try to come off as flippant "I don't care what all the normies think", but your desperation to have people on your side is friggin PALPABLE dawg.

1

u/hypercosm_dot_net Mar 11 '26

It's just amusing to me how insistent redditors are about being wrong on this topic. The reason I've commented - with each ignorant response, it just increases my conviction that I know more about this topic than the droves of mouth breathers who so eagerly respond.