"2) I have nothing to say on social media that can't be said elsewhere. Social media is handy for reaching a bunch of people in both directions, but I can't think of a single thing I could use it for"
Ah, just noticed the end was cut off there. I meant to say - I can't think of a single thing I could use it for that would be impossible to do without it. Social media is a handy, convenient tool that potentially frees me of some groundwork, but it doesn't actually enable anything that can't be done with other tools. The only thing that's possible is that it makes reaching a mass audience more difficult without it, but nobody has a right to a mass audience.
"You're suggesting Playstation users open a web browser to play Microsoft games? I don't see that taking off. Have you ever used a browser on a game console? It sucks"
You can play xCloud games on the XBox One via an app, and that's worked perfectly for me in order to avoid installing larger games and/or play games that only run on the Series S/X. There's no reason why a similar thing can't be made available on PlayStation. Unless Sony get in the way, there's absolutely no reason why an xCloud user on PS would have a different experience to an xCloud user on XBox or PC, the only difference would be them not having the option to install a copy locally or play offline.
"People aren't very demanding of mobile games"
There's a vast difference between mobile games and using a browser to stream a game, so I suggest you ditch that silly analogy. For most games and most gamers, the xCloud game will be fine. You're not going to please the fanboys who do whatever they can to get an extra frame per second out of their game, but that's not most gamers. The majority would be fine with xCloud as an optional extra to access a bunch of games without having to shell out for extra hardware.
"Is that what you will call it when you are de-platformed by the monopolies?"
1) There are no monopolies in the social media space (which is what I suspect you're referring to). There's plenty of choice, and most people use multiple services, which immediately debunks your claim of monopoly.
2) I have nothing to say on social media that can't be said elsewhere. Social media is handy for reaching a bunch of people in both directions, but I can't think of a single thing I could use it for
3) Ive been on social media since the concept was first imagine and I have never been close to being "de-platformed", not even a single time-out. This is because I'm thoughtful with what I say and I'm not an asshole. If you find yourself being kicked off every platform and have to resort to other communication methods, maybe the problem isn't the platforms?
This is your basic problem. You're being told you're an asshole over and over again and facing consequences for being an asshole. Yet, your assholish nature doesn't allow you to understand that you are indeed the asshole.
"The completely correct analogy that these services are just like you ordering a phone line for your house--the phone company has no business monitoring what you say on your line"
Of course, it's a completely dumb analogy that only someone as dishonest as you could even consider taking seriously. The only things being monitored are public broadcasts, and the company you're associating your name with has every right to watch the same broadcasts as their other customers can, as well as other members of the general public who they would like to convince to become paying customers.
...and even if it did, there's no evidence that this has ever happened except due to accusations of copyright infringement, which I suspect he supports.
You're whining about the way someone exercised their right to free speech in response to the subject of the article. So, the subject of the article is still in play.
"One who is glad a voice has lost an outlet looses any currency in ‘defence of free speech’ discussion."
Luckily for him, free speech has fuck all to do with the subject here. No speech has been lost, only an audience, and nobody has a guaranteed right to another person's property to get that if they no longer wish to do business with you. Unless you're arguing for compelled speech and the loss of the right to free association, this has nothing to do with free speech.
"Independents (re US politics) belong to neither major party."
Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before - you do and say everything Republicans do, but when challenged you claim to be different despite all evidence to the contrary.
Well.. there is such a thing as unauthorised access to a system, although I'm not sure if the mere presence is ever that's something that's prosecuted, as opposed to prosecuting the actions taken either to gain access or while present on the system.
Re: Re: Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?! Not for
I'd love to hear more about the scope of the evidence, although it's doubtful that it exists. I mean, are we talking 300 million Americans (in which case that's roughly everyone in the US over the age of 5 - including Trump voters, so it seems weird he'd get them locked up too). Or, given that around 81 million people voted for Biden, is he saying they were all illegal and they were helped by 219 million other people around the world?
Even though he's clearly delusional, I'd be fascinated as to the details of the delusion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?!
Random unrelated confession time - I've never really "got" MST3K. I'm a huge horror fan, I have been known to watch a lot of bad movies both ironically and for actual entertainment. But, I never got the appeal of people talking over them if I'm not several beers in, physically taking part in the conversation.
"If you browser fails to render the 2nd half of a jpeg image - BOOM - the copyright holder has caught you by the wrists."
So, you're saying that you think people should be prosecuted for copyright infringement because their network connection dropped in the middle of a download?
I'd say that I'd love you to test this insanity in court because then at least you're not going to be fleecing people with scams that would have a chance of winning. But, unfortunately the lawyers scummy enough to think this is a good idea will still be paid, and I'd rather not have evil profit at the end of the day.
Like so many major companies, Facebook haven't originated a lot of unique ideas in-house, their strength has been making them palatable to the mainstream and using them to create revenue while keeping users engaged. You can say what you want about the ultimate effects and ethics of a lot of what they do, but this is their strength.
Ultimately, if the meta idea works, that's what's going to happen here. Ideas that have been tested elsewhere will be promoted to people who would not even consider using the things you just mentioned, and Facebook will monetise it in a way that keeps people using it even if they grumble about it when they're not using it.
I have serious doubts that it will work, personally, and I have some concerns about how it will be used by a sector of the market that's already known to have a somewhat flimsy grasp on reality, but I've been proven wrong before.
But... but... both sides! If the people they claim are just as bad as them on the "left" aren't actually as bad then how can they continue to support the "side" that's demonstrably worse?
"I made a point of calling out the creator of a headline that clearly cheers on the deplatforming of a voice simply because they disagree with it."
You've already loudly announced that you don't know the history, and the person writing the article had the right to announced they're happy that a business decision has gone the way they hoped it would.
Your need to distort facts until they fit your idiotic hallucinations about what you wish they meant does not change the nature of the facts.
"Well, that would be because I’ve seen nothing to say that OAN is a valid news source"
Yet, here you are, valiantly defending them.
"If OAN is as bad as it is reported to be than it is an accurate comparison to make with MSNBC."
It's not, but I don't expect you people to make actual valid comparisons other that "someone attacked a right wing source, attack MSNBC as if they care about them!". Do you have facts or just kneejerk false equivalence and pretending that's all that's needed to make an argument? Because it's really not.
"Always having to immediately place anyone you don’t agree with in some termed class."
I'm only reacting to the actual words you say. If you don't like being classed among morons who say the same words, that's not my fault.
I know, if only there was some way for them to have changed in the meantime and learn from their mistakes. I guess we'll just have to play Everwild and see what happens to the other studios they bought since to see what happens.
Sarcasm aside, Sea Of Thieves seems to have indicated a change from what I understand and there's reasons to be positive overall, although time will tell. I'm definitely more of a fan of what they're doing now than what Sony have done, anyway.
You seem to misunderstand. Microsoft have already expressed interest in cross-compatibility and Sony have been the main holdouts there (witness Rocket League, etc). MS already allow Macs to access Game Pass, and it's well known they were trying to deal with Nintendo over xCloud. So, if Sony can be convinced to allow some access it's a win for all, especially if there's some reciprocal agreement.
Or, you know, you can just enforce Sony's "you have to buy a PlayStation if you want to play Naughty Dog and Spiderman games" policy.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Re: A What?
"2) I have nothing to say on social media that can't be said elsewhere. Social media is handy for reaching a bunch of people in both directions, but I can't think of a single thing I could use it for"
Ah, just noticed the end was cut off there. I meant to say - I can't think of a single thing I could use it for that would be impossible to do without it. Social media is a handy, convenient tool that potentially frees me of some groundwork, but it doesn't actually enable anything that can't be done with other tools. The only thing that's possible is that it makes reaching a mass audience more difficult without it, but nobody has a right to a mass audience.
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
"You're suggesting Playstation users open a web browser to play Microsoft games? I don't see that taking off. Have you ever used a browser on a game console? It sucks"
You can play xCloud games on the XBox One via an app, and that's worked perfectly for me in order to avoid installing larger games and/or play games that only run on the Series S/X. There's no reason why a similar thing can't be made available on PlayStation. Unless Sony get in the way, there's absolutely no reason why an xCloud user on PS would have a different experience to an xCloud user on XBox or PC, the only difference would be them not having the option to install a copy locally or play offline.
"People aren't very demanding of mobile games"
There's a vast difference between mobile games and using a browser to stream a game, so I suggest you ditch that silly analogy. For most games and most gamers, the xCloud game will be fine. You're not going to please the fanboys who do whatever they can to get an extra frame per second out of their game, but that's not most gamers. The majority would be fine with xCloud as an optional extra to access a bunch of games without having to shell out for extra hardware.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: A What?
"Is that what you will call it when you are de-platformed by the monopolies?"
1) There are no monopolies in the social media space (which is what I suspect you're referring to). There's plenty of choice, and most people use multiple services, which immediately debunks your claim of monopoly.
2) I have nothing to say on social media that can't be said elsewhere. Social media is handy for reaching a bunch of people in both directions, but I can't think of a single thing I could use it for
3) Ive been on social media since the concept was first imagine and I have never been close to being "de-platformed", not even a single time-out. This is because I'm thoughtful with what I say and I'm not an asshole. If you find yourself being kicked off every platform and have to resort to other communication methods, maybe the problem isn't the platforms?
This is your basic problem. You're being told you're an asshole over and over again and facing consequences for being an asshole. Yet, your assholish nature doesn't allow you to understand that you are indeed the asshole.
"The completely correct analogy that these services are just like you ordering a phone line for your house--the phone company has no business monitoring what you say on your line"
Of course, it's a completely dumb analogy that only someone as dishonest as you could even consider taking seriously. The only things being monitored are public broadcasts, and the company you're associating your name with has every right to watch the same broadcasts as their other customers can, as well as other members of the general public who they would like to convince to become paying customers.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Re: A What?
...and even if it did, there's no evidence that this has ever happened except due to accusations of copyright infringement, which I suspect he supports.
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:
The person you're crying about using a word you disagree with.
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:
You're whining about the way someone exercised their right to free speech in response to the subject of the article. So, the subject of the article is still in play.
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:
"Only by proxy. I support all voices."
Apart from the ones you're complaining about.
"One who is glad a voice has lost an outlet looses any currency in ‘defence of free speech’ discussion."
Luckily for him, free speech has fuck all to do with the subject here. No speech has been lost, only an audience, and nobody has a guaranteed right to another person's property to get that if they no longer wish to do business with you. Unless you're arguing for compelled speech and the loss of the right to free association, this has nothing to do with free speech.
"Independents (re US politics) belong to neither major party."
Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before - you do and say everything Republicans do, but when challenged you claim to be different despite all evidence to the contrary.
On the post: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well.. there is such a thing as unauthorised access to a system, although I'm not sure if the mere presence is ever that's something that's prosecuted, as opposed to prosecuting the actions taken either to gain access or while present on the system.
On the post: Smartmatic Sues MyPillow CEO For Defamation Over His Months Of Nonstop Election Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?! Not for
I'd love to hear more about the scope of the evidence, although it's doubtful that it exists. I mean, are we talking 300 million Americans (in which case that's roughly everyone in the US over the age of 5 - including Trump voters, so it seems weird he'd get them locked up too). Or, given that around 81 million people voted for Biden, is he saying they were all illegal and they were helped by 219 million other people around the world?
Even though he's clearly delusional, I'd be fascinated as to the details of the delusion.
On the post: Smartmatic Sues MyPillow CEO For Defamation Over His Months Of Nonstop Election Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?!
Random unrelated confession time - I've never really "got" MST3K. I'm a huge horror fan, I have been known to watch a lot of bad movies both ironically and for actual entertainment. But, I never got the appeal of people talking over them if I'm not several beers in, physically taking part in the conversation.
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
Re: It's entirely NOT the equivalent of ...
"If you browser fails to render the 2nd half of a jpeg image - BOOM - the copyright holder has caught you by the wrists."
So, you're saying that you think people should be prosecuted for copyright infringement because their network connection dropped in the middle of a download?
I'd say that I'd love you to test this insanity in court because then at least you're not going to be fleecing people with scams that would have a chance of winning. But, unfortunately the lawyers scummy enough to think this is a good idea will still be paid, and I'd rather not have evil profit at the end of the day.
On the post: Patent Applications Hint That Facebook's VR World Might Just Be Web Mutton Dressed Up As Metaverse Lamb
Re:
Like so many major companies, Facebook haven't originated a lot of unique ideas in-house, their strength has been making them palatable to the mainstream and using them to create revenue while keeping users engaged. You can say what you want about the ultimate effects and ethics of a lot of what they do, but this is their strength.
Ultimately, if the meta idea works, that's what's going to happen here. Ideas that have been tested elsewhere will be promoted to people who would not even consider using the things you just mentioned, and Facebook will monetise it in a way that keeps people using it even if they grumble about it when they're not using it.
I have serious doubts that it will work, personally, and I have some concerns about how it will be used by a sector of the market that's already known to have a somewhat flimsy grasp on reality, but I've been proven wrong before.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re:
But... but... both sides! If the people they claim are just as bad as them on the "left" aren't actually as bad then how can they continue to support the "side" that's demonstrably worse?
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I made a point of calling out the creator of a headline that clearly cheers on the deplatforming of a voice simply because they disagree with it."
You've already loudly announced that you don't know the history, and the person writing the article had the right to announced they're happy that a business decision has gone the way they hoped it would.
Your need to distort facts until they fit your idiotic hallucinations about what you wish they meant does not change the nature of the facts.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re:
"it’s the opinion in context to a site that constantly defends free speech"
Someone here stated their opinion in response to a private business contract decision.
Where is the free speech issue?
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:
"You see this site has a tendency to support free speech."
Yes, and a private company choosing not to renew a contract with another private company has fuck all to do with free speech...
I see your later examples also have fuck all to do with private contracts, so your false equivalence instead of addressing facts is yet again noted.
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:
"Well, that would be because I’ve seen nothing to say that OAN is a valid news source"
Yet, here you are, valiantly defending them.
"If OAN is as bad as it is reported to be than it is an accurate comparison to make with MSNBC."
It's not, but I don't expect you people to make actual valid comparisons other that "someone attacked a right wing source, attack MSNBC as if they care about them!". Do you have facts or just kneejerk false equivalence and pretending that's all that's needed to make an argument? Because it's really not.
"Always having to immediately place anyone you don’t agree with in some termed class."
I'm only reacting to the actual words you say. If you don't like being classed among morons who say the same words, that's not my fault.
"We’re independents for a reason."
Because you don't know what the word means?
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re: Re:
You'd be better off not making moronic strawmen and addressing my actual opinions...
Maybe start with the fact that I'm comparing them with Activision and Sony's existing anti-consumer actions?
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know, if only there was some way for them to have changed in the meantime and learn from their mistakes. I guess we'll just have to play Everwild and see what happens to the other studios they bought since to see what happens.
Sarcasm aside, Sea Of Thieves seems to have indicated a change from what I understand and there's reasons to be positive overall, although time will tell. I'm definitely more of a fan of what they're doing now than what Sony have done, anyway.
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
You seem to misunderstand. Microsoft have already expressed interest in cross-compatibility and Sony have been the main holdouts there (witness Rocket League, etc). MS already allow Macs to access Game Pass, and it's well known they were trying to deal with Nintendo over xCloud. So, if Sony can be convinced to allow some access it's a win for all, especially if there's some reciprocal agreement.
Or, you know, you can just enforce Sony's "you have to buy a PlayStation if you want to play Naughty Dog and Spiderman games" policy.
Next >>