There's a wealth of things to take issue with in this article, but I'll restrain myself to an early objection based on an adage I've tried to, over the past mon

There's a wealth of things to take issue with in this article, but I'll restrain myself to an early objection based on an adage I've tried to, over the past months, adhere to, for by own betterment. > Streaming technology is environmentally destructive, resulting in the release of up to 1.57 million metric tons of carbon per day. This article links to another by the New Yorker that repeats this claim, but never substantiates it - instead it immediately goes on a tirade about the Chinese government's genocide of Uighurs and child slavery (and then calls Spotify's royalty rates "no less problematic"). So - let us be brutally honest - this claim is probably a lie. Fabricated. And failing that, stupendously unfair. Most important to me is the very utilitarian observation that it is simply not economical nor constructive to concern yourself with this. And concerning yourself with things like this, the belief that listening to music on the internet - really, that simply using a computer - is "killing the planet" or otherwise "environmentally destructive", comes from this fetish people have developed to find the worst in absolutely everything to ensure they're as unhappy as possible. It's why the news can only ever hark on about Ukraine, or climate change, or corruption or coups or genocides in a country you can't even point to. There's always something wrong. You're never doing enough. You need to donate, you need to take shorter showers. You need to stop listening to music, but you shouldn't buy plastics! Oh and there's microplastics in your blood and AI is taking over the world. But it does. not. matter. It's such a stupid decision for people to worry themselves over any and everything, and it's extremely unhealthy. [I'm aware this probably sounds unhinged. I'm very tired.]