First capcom takes nintendo marketing material and posts it without authorship info.
are you fucking mental
Then blogs like slashdot get interested, and strip away even more authorship info and adds some bullshit description of how nintendo is doing their evil operations.
oh my god you are
Then finally techdirt decides to post the same story, again stripping away further layers of authorship information.
holy fucking shit you might actually be intellectually disabled
Then the content is available everywhere, but nintendo's authorship info is nowhere to be found. Instead all the blogs just replicate some bullshit about how nintendo is evil and supports copyright.
This piece of authorship information seems to be only available in the original nintendo's site.
The presentation is literally called a “Nintendo Direct”. I don’t know how you think people are talking about that video without actually mentioning Nintendo, but trust me, no one thinks Capcom or EA or fucking Microsoft put out a Nintendo Direct.
The practice of keeping accurate authorship information is one of the core elements in copyright protection.
Only you could see a Nintendo Direct put on by Nintendo that focuses on Nintendo games and contains tons of Nintendo branding, yet still think “wow, I wonder what company did that”.
Progress and creativity does not happen without proper ownership practices
People were pretty fucking creative for the thousands of years before copyright. People would still be creative if copyright were abolished (or at least heavily reformed) tomorrow.
Please cite the email that proves a government agency or any representative of the federal government directly and explicitly ordered Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media service to remove any kind of speech at the explicit and knowing behest of the United States government at any level.
The problem with deletion and go elsewhere is it’s not a direct parallel to the physical world.
If a bar owner kicks you out for insulting [local sports team], you can go to any other bar in…well, the world, really…and insult [local sports team] there. If Twitter deletes your speech, you can go to any other website on the Internet that accepts third-party submissions and repost the same speech that Twitter deleted. That other bars/websites may kick you out for the same speech is irrelevant — they’re still options. Until and unless you can prove that being denied the privilege of speaking on private property you don’t own is the exact same thing as losing the right to speak anywhere (including public property), your argument here is like an earthworm: It doesn’t have any legs to stand on.
You can’t stand in front of Twitter and communicate with Twitter users in the same way.
So what? They’re not obliged to listen, and you’re not entitled to make them listen. Same goes for people in meatspace, with one small difference: Someone would probably call the cops on you for disturbing the peace outside those places, whereas no one can call the cops on you for shittalking Twitter on Facebook, Soundcloud, YouTube, Techdirt, Mastodon, Parler, Gab, LiveJournal, 4chan, 8kun…
I don’t give a damn about your non-codified right FROM association
yes yes, you think people should be forced to listen to you, we get it
Show me a single Supreme Court case that declares freedom from association as a precedent.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) reasoned that a state’s interests in eradicating gender discrimination trumped the right of male members in social clubs to associate only with males and not females.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) reasoned that the “interests embodied in New Jersey’s public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to freedom of expressive association.”
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) reasoned that unions could not force employees to pay for fees for ideological and political activities not relevant to the union’s basic collective-bargaining duties.
how’s that, is that good enough for you
Consider if it’s worth dying on your sword under the likes of STS who are so blindly lockstep intrenched in their political beliefs that zero compromise is possible.
Mitch McConnell has already said that if the Republicans take the Senate back in 2022, he would move to block any Supreme Court nominee put forth by Joe Biden in 2024. I have to assume he would also block any nominee named in 2023 as well.
Mitch McConnell has already said that he plans to prioritize stonewalling the Biden administration in the Senate, mainly by using the filibuster. He said much the same thing about the Obama administration in 2010 (and did as much from 2010 to the end of Obama’s two terms).
does that sound like someone who is open to negotiations with people who do not fall in lockstep with him
Tell the Republicans how property right are at risk.
you really think they’ll give a fuck after Dear Leader tells them to keep attacking Twitter out of revenge
Tell democrats how repeal will lead to closure of content.
Question: If some asshole says “heil Hitler” on Twitter and gets banned for doing, but can still say that exact same phrase literally anywhere else in both cyber- and meatspace, whose speech has been suppressed?
So! How many lives are the police going to ruin for the “crime” of punking a high school yearbook? I mean, they’re gonna aim for at least one, but surely they can do “better” than that~.
Sadly, this behavior from China portends what will eventually happen here in the U.S.
Please don’t take the step of claiming that someone getting the boot from a privately owned and operated service such as Twitter is censorship, Koby. I want to believe you’re smarter than that.
To anyone who thinks moderation is censorship: I demand you explain how someone getting booted from Twitter for saying the N-word is the exact same thing as an authoritarian government preventing someone from expressing themselves under threats of fines/jail time/worse. No kindas, sortas, maybes, or buts allowed — you gotta explain how they’re the Exact. Same. Thing.
In the online world how is a user from one site supposed to understand “between the lines” of another site’s generic tos?
By trying to understand what the TOS says instead of needing every last part of it defined every step of the way, down to the last word.
When you break the law in the real world they tell you what you did wrong. Why do you not have that same level of explication online?
Because violating a TOS doesn’t break any laws unless the violation is also an illegal act. Someone could say “fuck your mother” to me on my property, and I could still kick them out without explanation even though they didn’t break any laws.
oh wait that would be censorship, wouldn’t it, I’d be preventing them from saying “fuck your mother” everywhere according to your definition of censorship
The acts you’re suggesting be done to placate trolls who whine about “censorship” say otherwise.
What post was a violation. What rule did it violate?
Speaking from personal experience: Twitter told me exactly what tweet I had to delete when they suspended me over the usage of an anti-gay slur (context: I’d used it in an argument about anti-gay attitudes). Not every service will be as forthcoming as Twitter, but not every service is Twitter, and not every service needs to be that forthcoming — especially when an asshole likely knows exactly why they got banned/suspended.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You And The Company Most Certainly Does Not Want You To Co-Stream 'Nintendo Direct'
are you fucking mental
oh my god you are
holy fucking shit you might actually be intellectually disabled
okay there’s no “might” about it any more, jfc
On the post: Nintendo Hates You And The Company Most Certainly Does Not Want You To Co-Stream 'Nintendo Direct'
The presentation is literally called a “Nintendo Direct”. I don’t know how you think people are talking about that video without actually mentioning Nintendo, but trust me, no one thinks Capcom or EA or fucking Microsoft put out a Nintendo Direct.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You And The Company Most Certainly Does Not Want You To Co-Stream 'Nintendo Direct'
Only you could see a Nintendo Direct put on by Nintendo that focuses on Nintendo games and contains tons of Nintendo branding, yet still think “wow, I wonder what company did that”.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You And The Company Most Certainly Does Not Want You To Co-Stream 'Nintendo Direct'
People were pretty fucking creative for the thousands of years before copyright. People would still be creative if copyright were abolished (or at least heavily reformed) tomorrow.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Please cite the email that proves a government agency or any representative of the federal government directly and explicitly ordered Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media service to remove any kind of speech at the explicit and knowing behest of the United States government at any level.
I’ll wait.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
so what
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
If a bar owner kicks you out for insulting [local sports team], you can go to any other bar in…well, the world, really…and insult [local sports team] there. If Twitter deletes your speech, you can go to any other website on the Internet that accepts third-party submissions and repost the same speech that Twitter deleted. That other bars/websites may kick you out for the same speech is irrelevant — they’re still options. Until and unless you can prove that being denied the privilege of speaking on private property you don’t own is the exact same thing as losing the right to speak anywhere (including public property), your argument here is like an earthworm: It doesn’t have any legs to stand on.
So what? They’re not obliged to listen, and you’re not entitled to make them listen. Same goes for people in meatspace, with one small difference: Someone would probably call the cops on you for disturbing the peace outside those places, whereas no one can call the cops on you for shittalking Twitter on Facebook, Soundcloud, YouTube, Techdirt, Mastodon, Parler, Gab, LiveJournal, 4chan, 8kun…
On the post: If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
And when they run out of “undesirables” to punish, they’ll eventually turn inward and punish those who aren’t “loyal enough”.
On the post: If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
Put the names side by side in an Excel spreadsheet. That way, there is no bottom. 🙃
On the post: If David Cicilline Gets His Way; It Would Destroy Content Moderation
Is there anything more Republican than forcing people who disagree with them to host speech they don’t want to host?
…okay, there is the anti-abortion thing, but still.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
a Twitter rule against saying racial slurs doesn’t have the force of government backing it up, you dipshit
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
yes yes, you think people should be forced to listen to you, we get it
Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) reasoned that a state’s interests in eradicating gender discrimination trumped the right of male members in social clubs to associate only with males and not females.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) reasoned that the “interests embodied in New Jersey’s public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to freedom of expressive association.”
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) reasoned that unions could not force employees to pay for fees for ideological and political activities not relevant to the union’s basic collective-bargaining duties.
how’s that, is that good enough for you
Mitch McConnell has already said that if the Republicans take the Senate back in 2022, he would move to block any Supreme Court nominee put forth by Joe Biden in 2024. I have to assume he would also block any nominee named in 2023 as well.
Mitch McConnell has already said that he plans to prioritize stonewalling the Biden administration in the Senate, mainly by using the filibuster. He said much the same thing about the Obama administration in 2010 (and did as much from 2010 to the end of Obama’s two terms).
does that sound like someone who is open to negotiations with people who do not fall in lockstep with him
you really think they’ll give a fuck after Dear Leader tells them to keep attacking Twitter out of revenge
we’ve been doing that, asshole
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
Reheated playground leftovers are still better than the bullshit you’re offering.
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
Question: If some asshole says “heil Hitler” on Twitter and gets banned for doing, but can still say that exact same phrase literally anywhere else in both cyber- and meatspace, whose speech has been suppressed?
On the post: High School Responds To Student's Prank By Asking Local Law Enforcement To Step In And Investigate
So! How many lives are the police going to ruin for the “crime” of punking a high school yearbook? I mean, they’re gonna aim for at least one, but surely they can do “better” than that~.
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
Please don’t take the step of claiming that someone getting the boot from a privately owned and operated service such as Twitter is censorship, Koby. I want to believe you’re smarter than that.
On the post: Chinese Government Now Using National Security Law To Censor Art Being Displayed In Hong Kong
To anyone who thinks moderation is censorship: I demand you explain how someone getting booted from Twitter for saying the N-word is the exact same thing as an authoritarian government preventing someone from expressing themselves under threats of fines/jail time/worse. No kindas, sortas, maybes, or buts allowed — you gotta explain how they’re the Exact. Same. Thing.
I’ll wait.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
By trying to understand what the TOS says instead of needing every last part of it defined every step of the way, down to the last word.
Because violating a TOS doesn’t break any laws unless the violation is also an illegal act. Someone could say “fuck your mother” to me on my property, and I could still kick them out without explanation even though they didn’t break any laws.
oh wait that would be censorship, wouldn’t it, I’d be preventing them from saying “fuck your mother” everywhere according to your definition of censorship
fuck off, you disingenuous bad-faith bullshitter
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
The acts you’re suggesting be done to placate trolls who whine about “censorship” say otherwise.
Speaking from personal experience: Twitter told me exactly what tweet I had to delete when they suspended me over the usage of an anti-gay slur (context: I’d used it in an argument about anti-gay attitudes). Not every service will be as forthcoming as Twitter, but not every service is Twitter, and not every service needs to be that forthcoming — especially when an asshole likely knows exactly why they got banned/suspended.
On the post: Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks
Congratulations, you’re in favor of giving space to bigots, trolls, and spammers in the name of “anti-censorship”.
Next >>