My decision to avoid games with predatory capitalist mechanics doesn’t preclude me from criticizing those mechanics. You’re more than welcome to ignore me if you don’t like what I have to say.
Predatory capitalist mechanisms in videogames are predatory no matter the form they take. Lootboxes are one of the worst forms of this predation, though. While this may be a hydra situation—cut off one head, two more take its place—cutting off the lootbox head would still be damned satisfying.
Said it before, kinda sayin’ it again: When cops seem to have less restraint than retail workers in the face of shitty behavior by the general public, what does that say about the cops?
Yeah, see, here’s the thing: Even if the machines are easy to hack, no one has presented evidence that they were hooked up to the Internet in a way that would’ve let them be hacked—and, as you said, no one has even shown that they’ve been hacked regardless of Internet access. The parties being sued by Dominion are on the hook for proving their claims true; if they have the evidence, now would be the time for them to present it.
And judging by how Mike Lindell’s “this will put Trump back in office” cyber-symposium crashed and burned last week, Dominion has a far higher chance of winning its cases than you seem to think.
Damn. I’m on the side of a corporate behemoth in this fight, and all I needed to get there was watching a bunch of right-wing grifters lie about election integrity. How dare those assholes make me side with Dominion.
How, then, would you destroy Facebook in such a way that you don’t bring down the rest of the Internet? You can’t start a fire that big and expect it not to spread.
Facebook isn't the entire internet, but it has a near monopoly in its sector.
Twitter, the Fediverse, Discord, and a multitude of other social media/communication services say otherwise. Popularity alone does not make a monopoly.
Rather than trying to create a set of rules that applies to everything, it is probably more useful to target the near monopoly itself.
And that would still require regulations that don’t drag down the entire Internet with Facebook.
Perhaps by breaking up the company, or declaring it a common carrier would be a better approach.
Breaking up, maybe, but Facebook is not a common carrier. Trying to declare it one only because you hate it is a new low for you.
Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
I’m glad to know you support pro-queer and anti-racist ideologies, but your support for pro-terrorism and pro-pedophilia ideologies is…unfortunate.
In a tiny bit of fairness to Rockstar, I can understand not wanting a “competing product” floating around when they’re about to release updated versions of the PS2-era GTA games. But let’s not act as if anyone who plays those games with the now-deleted mods would buy those re-releases.
This isn’t about “protecting an investment”—this is about finding some way to force GTA fans into buying a product they don’t need/want to buy.
death threats from terrorist organizations are also not political opinions
Expressions of their political ideologies are, though. And when those are censored, the logic of your little pissant maxim says their opinions immediately become the strongest.
Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Does this maxim apply to Critical Race Theory, Pride flags, and any other speech or expression conservatives have sought to ban over the years? Or does it only apply to conservative views (you know the ones)?
It's time to forge the sword of friendship, accept their apology, and let the flames of empathy burn bright since mercy begets mercy.
No, it isn’t. But it also isn’t time to literally beat the life out of Trumpists unprompted. There are options beyond “let’s tolerate the intolera—whoops, there’s a concentration camp” and “let’s mount their severed heads on pikes outside government buildings”.
You’re coming awfully goddamn close to saying I’m a motherfucking Nazi sympathizer. I don’t appreciate that, and I doubt you would if I did the same to you.
I believe in violence as a last resort. In lieu of violence, we have other options for dealing with assholes—e.g., imprisonment for crimes, social ostracision, and expensive-as-fuck lawsuits. I’m all for inflicting consequences on would-be fascists and Nazi fuckwits, too. But violence can’t be the first and only consequence. I have no sympathies for Nazis and fascists; what I have are concerns about the road that long-term sustained political violence will take us down. The U.S. wouldn’t come out of such a situation as the same country it was before. The question is whether it would still be a country worth living in.
democracy must be defended by force of arms, because that's always what the opposition who reject democracy do
If and when that kind of violence becomes an absolute necessity—if and when all other options are off the table—I will gladly give my approval to such violence. But I refuse to believe we’re there right now, and I refuse to advocate for political violence in any situation other than the last desperate resort of protecting democracy.
There’s a consequence deficit at play. And it’s unclear how to fix that deficit without devising new legal frameworks for how we treat speech that causes tangible harm.
I accept that, yet I don’t believe violence or government censorship are the answers. I’ve made my feelings on violence clear, and I believe asking the government to censor “dangerous ideologies” risks censoring ideologies and opinions that are likely to do little more than humiliate the government. Going for either of those easy solutions might bring you some personal satisfaction, but whether it will actually take care of the problem is another story.
I converted it to JPEG after saving it as a PNG and it still clocked in at 10MB. But I felt that people should be able to see the chart without downloading that PDF, so…hey, enjoy the lunacy.
Most of his case never stood a chance, but on the jawboning issue, Ayyadurai had a solid point worth exploring. Shame that he was so goddamn incompetent and arrogant that he thought he could play lawyer instead of letting actual lawyers (and Charles Harder) do their jobs.
On the post: 4 Dems Pushing Game Companies To Drop Loot Boxes Pointing At UK Law That Doesn't Mention Loot Boxes
My decision to avoid games with predatory capitalist mechanics doesn’t preclude me from criticizing those mechanics. You’re more than welcome to ignore me if you don’t like what I have to say.
On the post: 4 Dems Pushing Game Companies To Drop Loot Boxes Pointing At UK Law That Doesn't Mention Loot Boxes
Predatory capitalist mechanisms in videogames are predatory no matter the form they take. Lootboxes are one of the worst forms of this predation, though. While this may be a hydra situation—cut off one head, two more take its place—cutting off the lootbox head would still be damned satisfying.
On the post: Nassau County Executive Vetoes Bill That Would Punish People For Making Cops Feel Bad
Said it before, kinda sayin’ it again: When cops seem to have less restraint than retail workers in the face of shitty behavior by the general public, what does that say about the cops?
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Yeah, see, here’s the thing: Even if the machines are easy to hack, no one has presented evidence that they were hooked up to the Internet in a way that would’ve let them be hacked—and, as you said, no one has even shown that they’ve been hacked regardless of Internet access. The parties being sued by Dominion are on the hook for proving their claims true; if they have the evidence, now would be the time for them to present it.
And judging by how Mike Lindell’s “this will put Trump back in office” cyber-symposium crashed and burned last week, Dominion has a far higher chance of winning its cases than you seem to think.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Do you believe the opinions of terrorists and pedophiles should be censored?
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
Damn. I’m on the side of a corporate behemoth in this fight, and all I needed to get there was watching a bunch of right-wing grifters lie about election integrity. How dare those assholes make me side with Dominion.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Flagged your post! 😁
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
How, then, would you destroy Facebook in such a way that you don’t bring down the rest of the Internet? You can’t start a fire that big and expect it not to spread.
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Twitter, the Fediverse, Discord, and a multitude of other social media/communication services say otherwise. Popularity alone does not make a monopoly.
And that would still require regulations that don’t drag down the entire Internet with Facebook.
Breaking up, maybe, but Facebook is not a common carrier. Trying to declare it one only because you hate it is a new low for you.
I’m glad to know you support pro-queer and anti-racist ideologies, but your support for pro-terrorism and pro-pedophilia ideologies is…unfortunate.
On the post: Rockstar Begins A War On Modders For 'GTA' Games For Totally Unclear Reasons
Mods for older games don’t make Rockstar money. GTA Online does. That is literally all the Rockstar legal beagles need to know.
On the post: Rockstar Begins A War On Modders For 'GTA' Games For Totally Unclear Reasons
In a tiny bit of fairness to Rockstar, I can understand not wanting a “competing product” floating around when they’re about to release updated versions of the PS2-era GTA games. But let’s not act as if anyone who plays those games with the now-deleted mods would buy those re-releases.
This isn’t about “protecting an investment”—this is about finding some way to force GTA fans into buying a product they don’t need/want to buy.
On the post: Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong
Expressions of their political ideologies are, though. And when those are censored, the logic of your little pissant maxim says their opinions immediately become the strongest.
Why do you support terrorist ideologies, Koby?
On the post: Texas Legislature Has Another Ridiculous And Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill; Say Goodbye To Email Filters
I’m sure the usual 230-hating suspects will be along shortly to defend the forcing of spam into our inboxes.
Any minute now…
🕰️
On the post: Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong
Does this maxim apply to Critical Race Theory, Pride flags, and any other speech or expression conservatives have sought to ban over the years? Or does it only apply to conservative views (you know the ones)?
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
No, it isn’t. But it also isn’t time to literally beat the life out of Trumpists unprompted. There are options beyond “let’s tolerate the intolera—whoops, there’s a concentration camp” and “let’s mount their severed heads on pikes outside government buildings”.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
You’re coming awfully goddamn close to saying I’m a motherfucking Nazi sympathizer. I don’t appreciate that, and I doubt you would if I did the same to you.
I believe in violence as a last resort. In lieu of violence, we have other options for dealing with assholes—e.g., imprisonment for crimes, social ostracision, and expensive-as-fuck lawsuits. I’m all for inflicting consequences on would-be fascists and Nazi fuckwits, too. But violence can’t be the first and only consequence. I have no sympathies for Nazis and fascists; what I have are concerns about the road that long-term sustained political violence will take us down. The U.S. wouldn’t come out of such a situation as the same country it was before. The question is whether it would still be a country worth living in.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
If and when that kind of violence becomes an absolute necessity—if and when all other options are off the table—I will gladly give my approval to such violence. But I refuse to believe we’re there right now, and I refuse to advocate for political violence in any situation other than the last desperate resort of protecting democracy.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
I accept that, yet I don’t believe violence or government censorship are the answers. I’ve made my feelings on violence clear, and I believe asking the government to censor “dangerous ideologies” risks censoring ideologies and opinions that are likely to do little more than humiliate the government. Going for either of those easy solutions might bring you some personal satisfaction, but whether it will actually take care of the problem is another story.
On the post: Shiva Ayyadurai Drops His Potentially Interesting Lawsuit About Massachusetts Officials Complaining To Twitter About Tweets
I converted it to JPEG after saving it as a PNG and it still clocked in at 10MB. But I felt that people should be able to see the chart without downloading that PDF, so…hey, enjoy the lunacy.
On the post: Shiva Ayyadurai Drops His Potentially Interesting Lawsuit About Massachusetts Officials Complaining To Twitter About Tweets
Most of his case never stood a chance, but on the jawboning issue, Ayyadurai had a solid point worth exploring. Shame that he was so goddamn incompetent and arrogant that he thought he could play lawyer instead of letting actual lawyers (and Charles Harder) do their jobs.
Next >>