Again, if you feel personally attacked or slighted by this activity then it would be sensible to put your money where your mouth is and buy from competitors. But, just don't make the mistake of thinking that you're in a majority position. Even the guy who set up the channel needn't necessarily be a current Nintendo customer (I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other, but that wouldn't be a prerequisite for the channel from what I understand).
My nostalgia comment was simply to stress that the people who care about this may well not be giving Nintendo any money to begin with in the present and it's a mistake to assume that everyone listening to these videos is even in the market for new games, no matter who they come from. Although articles like the above love to stress things like Mario, quite often they're enjoyed by people accessing more obscure content, some of which might be orphaned works that can't be legally re-released or sequalised by Nintendo even if they were to discover a business reason to do so.
Same thing happened in the emulation scene - people emulating Mario and Zelda got the headlines, but the people who were trying to access the likes of StarTropics and Little Samson and other obscure oddities were also affected. While the Mario fan might be convinced to buy officially emulated titles and buy the new game in the series, the StarTropics fan need not necessarily buy any new games at all.
The main issue from what I understand isn't that he chooses to host these people. The problem is that he basically gives them a platform and nods along. There would be value if he challenged what they say, or set up a debate with an actual counter position, but his "interview" style is basically to give them access to a far wider platform than they have themselves and say what they want. This is especially problematic because some of the more clued-in guests will tone down the rhetoric they spew elsewhere in order to attract more followers.
I've never listened to Rogan directly, but I've heard dissections on a podcast that follows the antics of Alex Jones. On his own Infowars shows, Alex will often devolve into very strange theories, rants about religion and other such things. But, on Rogan's show he's way more subdued and might appear to the uninitiated to be quite reasonable at times. But, he's talking about the same disinformation.
For example, Alex is obsessed with the idea that because a training exercise hosted by (I think) NATO a few years back included among its many scenarios a global pandemic, that it's an admission that COVID is a bioweapon released to control populations. There's nothing behind that unless you indulge in a huge amount of cherry picking and misrepresentation, but that's what he claims. He brought this up while talking to Rogan, and the only challenge he got was a cursory check to prove that the document existed (not that it said what Alex said it did, only that it was there). So, while the host of the podcast I listen to could spend 30 minutes detailing why the claim is nonsense, how the document says nothing like what Alex said it did and even how the document diverges so far from reality even within the cherry picked paragraphs, the casual listener to Rogan would easily be fooled into thinking he was right. He was allowed to lie and spread disinformation to Rogan's audience in a way that might fool them and affect how they themselves deal with the pandemic, and thus harm others in a way that would not have happened if they weren't lied to about the pandemic.
This is why Rogan is so problematic. Not because he has "controversial" guests, but because he amplifies so many liars, grifters and lunatics by giving them a platform and air of respectability. This is a big problem in normal times, but in the middle of a global pandemic it goes from irresponsible to outright dangerous - and I don't see why people should not complain about danger to themselves.
In theory, the problem with online communication is that when granted the state of anonymity, some people will let out things that they wouldn't normally want to be associated with under their real identity. But, I dare say that certain forms of social media have proven this to be false, and some people really don't mind being offensively toxic under their real identity.
I'm pretty sure Young didn't think there was really a chance in hell that Spottify would ditch their $100 million investment to keep him anyway. This was more about publicising the issue and hopefully inspiring customers to ditch them in support of the issue (which from what I can see has been happening, albeit not necessarily on a large scale):
"Whatever you think about Rogan, its not a good thing that these musicians are using their large catalogs of copyrighted works (which, one might argue, should be in the public domain by now) to attempt to bully companies into de-platforming people."
Why not? It took a long time to convince some of these artists to offer digital versions of their music in the first place. Why do they have to continue a business relationship with someone they find it objectionable to do business with if they change their mind on the subject?
"What if some huge artist or label told Google that they had to de-list techdirt or get their music pulled form Google play"
Well, that would be completely stupid, but also within their right. I'm sure Mike would be happy with the Streisand Effect on the traffic here when that demand was publicised.
With that particular word, I think that it would be pronounced "face-ists" the way Koby spelled it so the spelling would be more logical there than with some other easily confused words.
I think Mike confirmed this, but section 230 doesn't make the distinction between paid and hosted, it makes the distinction between first and third party. Unless it can be shown that Spotify have a direct editorial role in the content, I believe section 230 would still apply.
The purpose of the bill is to "do something" about a problem then grandstand on "doing something" in the next election while using the fact that opponents opposed "doing something" against them.
The actual real world long-term effects of the bill are for the next sucker to deal with after they finish out their term/grift.
"One of these fake documents made its way into court, used as evidence (!!) during a bail hearing."
Sounds like someone's lying or Virginia Beach really needs to have some kind of law about knowingly lying to the court...
"While it's good this discovery led to swift action, the investigation should really be expanded to see what other unsavory techniques are being deployed to extract confessions."
I'd go a step further. Any and all prosecutions made by the departments involved are now null and void. They have shown that they're willing to lie to both potentially innocent suspects and to the court in order to extract the result they want. Everything needs to be re-examined to ensure that this hasn't happened on a larger scale.
This probably won't happen, but when you've been shown to be faking evidence in one case, you lose any trust that you haven't been faking everything.
Two problems with that. One is that as I've mentioned before, most people buying new stuff from Nintendo don't know or care about these stories. Everyone affected could boycott them entirely and they wouldn't notice.
The other is that nostalgia is what it is, and it's in the past. People watching these videos are likely to be interested in old stuff, much of it being what they consumed in their childhoods. You can't suddenly be nostalgic for other things. Maybe things you hadn't seen before from the same era as the one you're nostalgic for, but that's not exactly generating new sales either.
Well, Nintendo did come down hard on ROM sites and emulation communities before they ever had copies of games available themselves. Then released a handful of games in locked-up versions that they wouldn't even let people transfer between their Nintendo consoles, IIRC.
So, this could be a similar thing - they might, someday, release some of the music in some version, but anything not officially sanctioned needs to burn for some reason.
Yeah, me too. They usually say "don't worry", then after they've negotiated new contracts and new positions with people they need necessary they'll call the other employees into a room and tell them about their severance package.
We will have to wait and see, but I fear that anyone taking this as gospel will end up disappointed at some point. Most likely, they're using the combination of some people being disappointed with the strategy for Bethesda and Bungie's former relationship with Microsoft to score some points, they they'll make some actual plans once they can see what's happening with Activision.
Yeah, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Microsoft would sell the franchise unless they were fighting off bankruptcy, which isn't likely any time soon.
But, then, I didn't expect the Alien franchise and American Horror Story to be appearing on my Disney+ feed either yet they're there (outside North America anyway), but they are there...
It could happen, but I expect I'll be able to play Uncharted and Spiderman on my XBox long before Halo is anything but a Microsoft cash cow.
OK so to give a concrete example, when I was in the UK for Christmas I happened to notice that the channel ozmartian was not available due to georestrictions, which do not occur when I'm at home in Spain. From what I can tell, the channel is not officially sanctioned and it largely exists to stream UK panel shows such as 8 Out Of 10 Cats, QI and Mock The Week. In the UK these are produced and broadcast by different networks, so I doubt there's an unannounced relationship behind the scenes, and the channel has around 55k subscribers - not small, but not large enough to get special treatment as far as I'm aware.
That's curious to me. It makes sense for the channel to be geoblocked as in the UK there's official streaming platforms like BBC iPlayer and Channel 4's All 4 service, which are only available in the UK. But, the existence of the block and lack of official sanctioning of the channel suggested to me that something must already exist. It's possible that there's a blanket agreement that simply picks up on the shows and automatically blocks them outside the UK, but then it's weird that what appears to be naked copyright infringement does not get blocked outright.
I'm just curious. The subject is that a network set up specifically to broadcast propaganda, that's known to host at least one Sputnik employee, has a lost a contract with the company that was ordered by its former owner to host it once that owner could no longer call the shots. Some people are rightly happy about that.
Your addled mind has converted that into "people are happy that speech they disagree with has been shut down". That's not really true on any objective level, but I just wanted to take it a step further. The speech I agree with and listen to does not require astroturfing, specific propaganda networks to be installed to counter free speech that naturally occurs elsewhere or employees of foreign propaganda networks.
Your reaction here, and your already stated media consumption, suggests that you agree on some level with what OANN was shovelling. If true, I'm simply curious why such things are necessary for your point of view to be heard and not for others.
If not true, you simply appear to be somewhat mistaken as to what OANN is and why people are reacting this way, which simply suggests that you should spend less time whining and inventing false comparisons with MSNBC (a network nobody here has said they watch, despite it being the pre-programmed whataboutism used by Murdoch drones), and more time actually reading the words other people write. Understanding what others are actually saying creates less opportunities for threadbare strawmen to attack, but it will leave you less confused and wrong.
Doubt all you want, you're lying if you state I have any other opinion on the subject.
"It was about an individual praising the loss of the reach of a voice they disagreed with."
It was about the spread of lies and misinformation no longer being propped up by the corporation that paid for them to do that. The thing is, I don't have to rely on that for things I agree with to be communicated. Why do the opinions you agree with depend on such things?
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative
Re: Re: Re:
Again, if you feel personally attacked or slighted by this activity then it would be sensible to put your money where your mouth is and buy from competitors. But, just don't make the mistake of thinking that you're in a majority position. Even the guy who set up the channel needn't necessarily be a current Nintendo customer (I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other, but that wouldn't be a prerequisite for the channel from what I understand).
My nostalgia comment was simply to stress that the people who care about this may well not be giving Nintendo any money to begin with in the present and it's a mistake to assume that everyone listening to these videos is even in the market for new games, no matter who they come from. Although articles like the above love to stress things like Mario, quite often they're enjoyed by people accessing more obscure content, some of which might be orphaned works that can't be legally re-released or sequalised by Nintendo even if they were to discover a business reason to do so.
Same thing happened in the emulation scene - people emulating Mario and Zelda got the headlines, but the people who were trying to access the likes of StarTropics and Little Samson and other obscure oddities were also affected. While the Mario fan might be convinced to buy officially emulated titles and buy the new game in the series, the StarTropics fan need not necessarily buy any new games at all.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The main issue from what I understand isn't that he chooses to host these people. The problem is that he basically gives them a platform and nods along. There would be value if he challenged what they say, or set up a debate with an actual counter position, but his "interview" style is basically to give them access to a far wider platform than they have themselves and say what they want. This is especially problematic because some of the more clued-in guests will tone down the rhetoric they spew elsewhere in order to attract more followers.
I've never listened to Rogan directly, but I've heard dissections on a podcast that follows the antics of Alex Jones. On his own Infowars shows, Alex will often devolve into very strange theories, rants about religion and other such things. But, on Rogan's show he's way more subdued and might appear to the uninitiated to be quite reasonable at times. But, he's talking about the same disinformation.
For example, Alex is obsessed with the idea that because a training exercise hosted by (I think) NATO a few years back included among its many scenarios a global pandemic, that it's an admission that COVID is a bioweapon released to control populations. There's nothing behind that unless you indulge in a huge amount of cherry picking and misrepresentation, but that's what he claims. He brought this up while talking to Rogan, and the only challenge he got was a cursory check to prove that the document existed (not that it said what Alex said it did, only that it was there). So, while the host of the podcast I listen to could spend 30 minutes detailing why the claim is nonsense, how the document says nothing like what Alex said it did and even how the document diverges so far from reality even within the cherry picked paragraphs, the casual listener to Rogan would easily be fooled into thinking he was right. He was allowed to lie and spread disinformation to Rogan's audience in a way that might fool them and affect how they themselves deal with the pandemic, and thus harm others in a way that would not have happened if they weren't lied to about the pandemic.
This is why Rogan is so problematic. Not because he has "controversial" guests, but because he amplifies so many liars, grifters and lunatics by giving them a platform and air of respectability. This is a big problem in normal times, but in the middle of a global pandemic it goes from irresponsible to outright dangerous - and I don't see why people should not complain about danger to themselves.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heavy night on the sauce, huh?
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Disallowed
"There are a growing number of people, both in the U.S. and the western world, who are increasingly intolerant of any speech with which they disagree"
Which is actually a very good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
On the post: Can You Solve The Miserable Being Miserable Online By Regulating Tech?
Re:
In theory, the problem with online communication is that when granted the state of anonymity, some people will let out things that they wouldn't normally want to be associated with under their real identity. But, I dare say that certain forms of social media have proven this to be false, and some people really don't mind being offensively toxic under their real identity.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re:
I'm pretty sure Young didn't think there was really a chance in hell that Spottify would ditch their $100 million investment to keep him anyway. This was more about publicising the issue and hopefully inspiring customers to ditch them in support of the issue (which from what I can see has been happening, albeit not necessarily on a large scale):
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Another Angle to this Story
"Whatever you think about Rogan, its not a good thing that these musicians are using their large catalogs of copyrighted works (which, one might argue, should be in the public domain by now) to attempt to bully companies into de-platforming people."
Why not? It took a long time to convince some of these artists to offer digital versions of their music in the first place. Why do they have to continue a business relationship with someone they find it objectionable to do business with if they change their mind on the subject?
"What if some huge artist or label told Google that they had to de-list techdirt or get their music pulled form Google play"
Well, that would be completely stupid, but also within their right. I'm sure Mike would be happy with the Streisand Effect on the traffic here when that demand was publicised.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re:
With that particular word, I think that it would be pronounced "face-ists" the way Koby spelled it so the spelling would be more logical there than with some other easily confused words.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re:
I think Mike confirmed this, but section 230 doesn't make the distinction between paid and hosted, it makes the distinction between first and third party. Unless it can be shown that Spotify have a direct editorial role in the content, I believe section 230 would still apply.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
You said that you have a problem with people trying to get content removed, which is deplatforming.
On the post: Senator Wyden: EARN IT Will Make Children Less Safe
Re:
The purpose of the bill is to "do something" about a problem then grandstand on "doing something" in the next election while using the fact that opponents opposed "doing something" against them.
The actual real world long-term effects of the bill are for the next sucker to deal with after they finish out their term/grift.
On the post: Virginia Police Used Fake Forensic Documents To Secure Confessions From Criminal Suspects
"though legal"
"One of these fake documents made its way into court, used as evidence (!!) during a bail hearing."
Sounds like someone's lying or Virginia Beach really needs to have some kind of law about knowingly lying to the court...
"While it's good this discovery led to swift action, the investigation should really be expanded to see what other unsavory techniques are being deployed to extract confessions."
I'd go a step further. Any and all prosecutions made by the departments involved are now null and void. They have shown that they're willing to lie to both potentially innocent suspects and to the court in order to extract the result they want. Everything needs to be re-examined to ensure that this hasn't happened on a larger scale.
This probably won't happen, but when you've been shown to be faking evidence in one case, you lose any trust that you haven't been faking everything.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative
Re:
Two problems with that. One is that as I've mentioned before, most people buying new stuff from Nintendo don't know or care about these stories. Everyone affected could boycott them entirely and they wouldn't notice.
The other is that nostalgia is what it is, and it's in the past. People watching these videos are likely to be interested in old stuff, much of it being what they consumed in their childhoods. You can't suddenly be nostalgic for other things. Maybe things you hadn't seen before from the same era as the one you're nostalgic for, but that's not exactly generating new sales either.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative
Re:
Well, Nintendo did come down hard on ROM sites and emulation communities before they ever had copies of games available themselves. Then released a handful of games in locked-up versions that they wouldn't even let people transfer between their Nintendo consoles, IIRC.
So, this could be a similar thing - they might, someday, release some of the music in some version, but anything not officially sanctioned needs to burn for some reason.
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
Re: I don't trust
Yeah, me too. They usually say "don't worry", then after they've negotiated new contracts and new positions with people they need necessary they'll call the other employees into a room and tell them about their severance package.
We will have to wait and see, but I fear that anyone taking this as gospel will end up disappointed at some point. Most likely, they're using the combination of some people being disappointed with the strategy for Bethesda and Bungie's former relationship with Microsoft to score some points, they they'll make some actual plans once they can see what's happening with Activision.
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
Re: Re:
Yeah, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Microsoft would sell the franchise unless they were fighting off bankruptcy, which isn't likely any time soon.
But, then, I didn't expect the Alien franchise and American Horror Story to be appearing on my Disney+ feed either yet they're there (outside North America anyway), but they are there...
It could happen, but I expect I'll be able to play Uncharted and Spiderman on my XBox long before Halo is anything but a Microsoft cash cow.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re: Re: Re: Youtube Geoblocking
OK so to give a concrete example, when I was in the UK for Christmas I happened to notice that the channel ozmartian was not available due to georestrictions, which do not occur when I'm at home in Spain. From what I can tell, the channel is not officially sanctioned and it largely exists to stream UK panel shows such as 8 Out Of 10 Cats, QI and Mock The Week. In the UK these are produced and broadcast by different networks, so I doubt there's an unannounced relationship behind the scenes, and the channel has around 55k subscribers - not small, but not large enough to get special treatment as far as I'm aware.
That's curious to me. It makes sense for the channel to be geoblocked as in the UK there's official streaming platforms like BBC iPlayer and Channel 4's All 4 service, which are only available in the UK. But, the existence of the block and lack of official sanctioning of the channel suggested to me that something must already exist. It's possible that there's a blanket agreement that simply picks up on the shows and automatically blocks them outside the UK, but then it's weird that what appears to be naked copyright infringement does not get blocked outright.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just curious. The subject is that a network set up specifically to broadcast propaganda, that's known to host at least one Sputnik employee, has a lost a contract with the company that was ordered by its former owner to host it once that owner could no longer call the shots. Some people are rightly happy about that.
Your addled mind has converted that into "people are happy that speech they disagree with has been shut down". That's not really true on any objective level, but I just wanted to take it a step further. The speech I agree with and listen to does not require astroturfing, specific propaganda networks to be installed to counter free speech that naturally occurs elsewhere or employees of foreign propaganda networks.
Your reaction here, and your already stated media consumption, suggests that you agree on some level with what OANN was shovelling. If true, I'm simply curious why such things are necessary for your point of view to be heard and not for others.
If not true, you simply appear to be somewhat mistaken as to what OANN is and why people are reacting this way, which simply suggests that you should spend less time whining and inventing false comparisons with MSNBC (a network nobody here has said they watch, despite it being the pre-programmed whataboutism used by Murdoch drones), and more time actually reading the words other people write. Understanding what others are actually saying creates less opportunities for threadbare strawmen to attack, but it will leave you less confused and wrong.
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
Re: Re: Re: Not that hard when you're being honest
Yeah, but I have my doubts that being bought out by Sony of all people will inspire them to become more consumer friendly.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I highly doubt that"
Doubt all you want, you're lying if you state I have any other opinion on the subject.
"It was about an individual praising the loss of the reach of a voice they disagreed with."
It was about the spread of lies and misinformation no longer being propped up by the corporation that paid for them to do that. The thing is, I don't have to rely on that for things I agree with to be communicated. Why do the opinions you agree with depend on such things?
Next >>