These were the cheats he used, according to the original lawsuit:
Cheats give a cheater power to do or see things that others players cannot. For instance, a cheat might enable the cheater to see through solid objects, teleport, impersonate another player by “spoofing” that player’s user name, or make moves other players cannot, such as a spin followed by an instant headshot to another player.
Not exactly what one would call improvements in a battle royale game.
We know it's an improvement because other people use YOUR improvements on that company's product.
If these "improvements" ruin the game experience for other players, then they're not improvements.
This wasn't a simply QoL mod; it was a hacking tool used for cheating. The 14-year old was an idiot, and the last thing he deserves would be a gig working for Epic.
Much more to gain by remaining the perpetual martyr. They rely on the narrative that they are, in fact, the persecuted minority for holding a difference of opinion and tend to be very quiet that said opinion is one in favor of white supremacy and racism.
They can't do that if they actually win the public argument and have to start competing with real issues instead.
Seems to me that a "David v Goliath"-style win, even if it was just a tiny part of the whole lawsuit, would be more beneficial to them here.
Amazon's lawyers said previously that they would be willing to reinstate the site if Parler agreed to implementing proper moderation policies. So I don't think it's inconceivable that Parler's lawyers could have made the argument.
They just failed to in this case.
To be clear, Parler reaped what it sowed, but the idea that Parler would intentionally throw away a potential win against Big Tech, who their users hate anyway, doesn't make sense to me. At least not compared to the alternative.
But on the other hand, a competent and cohesive argument for reinstatement of the website that could have given them the website back would've painted them as heroes who fight, and win, against Big Tech. That would have been a big win on the user front.
Or, they knew they would never actually win the case, so those claims were thrown out as red meat to Parler's userbase as a way to play the victim. They know they attract the kinds of people who will accept wild claims without evidence, so they know that pretending there's a grand conspiracy against them will work to retain some of that base, even if there's no possible way the claims could be factual..
I know we're already talking about lawyers that seem fairly incompetent, but that makes no sense. Why intentionally include claims that are useless in a legal sense, just to rile up users that seem intent on sticking around anyway?
Kinda. A small section of the Twitter-sphere have tried to argue that there's a straight line from Gamergate to the riots. I really wish that was an Onion-article.
Bad idea. Many people who watch streamers watch them, in part, because they're playing a game they don't own themselves, and unless the music in a game isn't from an original soundtrack, there's no reason to assume that they have the music, especially with streaming being the new normal.
This kind of "stream gatekeeping" makes no sense.
Also, implementing this is just another way of putting the onus on the consumer. Consumers are not the ones who should be roped in to fix this, when the problem stems from stupid laws and greedy corporations.
In an article about "disinformation" you have deliberately published false information about the Soviet Union (The Soviet Fucking Union!) being the first to use techniques that have been around as long as humans have existed.
From Wikipedia:
"The English word disinformation is a loan translation of the Russian dezinformatsiya,[1][2][3] derived from the title of a KGB black propaganda department.[4] Joseph Stalin coined the term, giving it a French-sounding name to claim it had a Western origin.[1] Russian use began with a "special disinformation office" in 1923.[5] Disinformation was defined in Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1952) as "false information with the intention to deceive public opinion".[1][2][6]"
On the post: Stadia Fallout: Nobody Can Address Stadia Games' Bugs Because Google Fired All The Developers
Re:
There are plenty of exceptions besides Voice.
On the post: Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating
Re:
That doesn't make any sense. Why would they pay for something they don't have to while having no serious competitors?
On the post: Epic Games' Case Against Teenage Fortnite Cheater Finally Settles
Re: Imagine yourself at 14...
These were the cheats he used, according to the original lawsuit:
Not exactly what one would call improvements in a battle royale game.
On the post: Epic Games' Case Against Teenage Fortnite Cheater Finally Settles
Re: Imagine yourself at 14...
If these "improvements" ruin the game experience for other players, then they're not improvements.
This wasn't a simply QoL mod; it was a hacking tool used for cheating. The 14-year old was an idiot, and the last thing he deserves would be a gig working for Epic.
On the post: We're Living Our Lives On The Internet, And We Can't Be Free If It Isn't.
Re:
Please provide an example of Techdirt harping over a private corporation moderating user content.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
I appreciate Kessler and the senators reminding me how much of a clusterfuck Blizzard's Real ID debacle was.
On the post: Judge Easily Rejects Parler's Demands To Have Amazon Reinstate Parler
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Par-lie
Seems to me that a "David v Goliath"-style win, even if it was just a tiny part of the whole lawsuit, would be more beneficial to them here.
On the post: Judge Easily Rejects Parler's Demands To Have Amazon Reinstate Parler
Re:
Amazon's lawyers said previously that they would be willing to reinstate the site if Parler agreed to implementing proper moderation policies. So I don't think it's inconceivable that Parler's lawyers could have made the argument.
They just failed to in this case.
To be clear, Parler reaped what it sowed, but the idea that Parler would intentionally throw away a potential win against Big Tech, who their users hate anyway, doesn't make sense to me. At least not compared to the alternative.
On the post: Judge Easily Rejects Parler's Demands To Have Amazon Reinstate Parler
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Par-lie
But on the other hand, a competent and cohesive argument for reinstatement of the website that could have given them the website back would've painted them as heroes who fight, and win, against Big Tech. That would have been a big win on the user front.
On the post: Judge Easily Rejects Parler's Demands To Have Amazon Reinstate Parler
Re: Re: Re: Par-lie
I know we're already talking about lawyers that seem fairly incompetent, but that makes no sense. Why intentionally include claims that are useless in a legal sense, just to rile up users that seem intent on sticking around anyway?
On the post: New York Times Decides Kids Are Playing Too Many Video Games During The Pandemic
Re:
Kinda. A small section of the Twitter-sphere have tried to argue that there's a straight line from Gamergate to the riots. I really wish that was an Onion-article.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/01/07/gamergate-to-blame-for-washington-d-c-prote sts-claim-mainstream-video-game-media-personalities/
On the post: The Esports Industry Grew; Now It's Time For It To Grow Up
Considering that MK is an 18+-rated game, it's ironic that NRS aren't displaying the sense befitting an adult.
On the post: Oversight Board Agrees To Review Facebook's Trump Suspension
Re:
You don't know that yet.
I beg to differ. A thorough response with reasons for and against a decision can absolutely be nuanced, even if the end result is ban vs. don't ban.
No, it can't. Thinking that any decision will be indicative of future ones is fallacious.
On the post: Judge Easily Rejects Parler's Demands To Have Amazon Reinstate Parler
Re: Par-lie
That, or the lawyers just suck at research.
On the post: Verizon's Latest 5G Innovation: A 5G 'DSS' Network That's Slower Than 4G
Re: Just a thought.
It's worse because ISP's have overhyped the technology long before it's widely available.
On the post: Esports Milestone: The Philadelphia Eagles Become The First NFL Team To Dive Into Esports
Re:
From what I can find, it was the owner of the Dallas Cowboys that bought a majority stake in comPlexity Gaming, not Dallas Cowboys proper.
On the post: Cyberpunk 2077's Stream-Safe Setting Option For Its Music Failed To Keep Streamers Safe
Re:
Bad idea. Many people who watch streamers watch them, in part, because they're playing a game they don't own themselves, and unless the music in a game isn't from an original soundtrack, there's no reason to assume that they have the music, especially with streaming being the new normal.
This kind of "stream gatekeeping" makes no sense.
Also, implementing this is just another way of putting the onus on the consumer. Consumers are not the ones who should be roped in to fix this, when the problem stems from stupid laws and greedy corporations.
On the post: Colorado Voters Continue To Peck Away At State Law Restricting Community Broadband
Am I the only one who often reads this as "incompetent ISPs" in the case of US broadband?
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Hey Tim Cushing
It's pretty funny how childish you sound from someone criticizing a guy you like.
On the post: Disinformation Campaigns Are Murky Blends Of Truth, Lies And Sincere Beliefs: Lessons From The Pandemic
Re: How Fucking Stupid Do You Think We Are?
From Wikipedia:
"The English word disinformation is a loan translation of the Russian dezinformatsiya,[1][2][3] derived from the title of a KGB black propaganda department.[4] Joseph Stalin coined the term, giving it a French-sounding name to claim it had a Western origin.[1] Russian use began with a "special disinformation office" in 1923.[5] Disinformation was defined in Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1952) as "false information with the intention to deceive public opinion".[1][2][6]"
Next >>