You should be able to filter out certain keywords using your Lemmy client.

It said it was going to explain why enshittification wouldn’t happen to them, but didn’t.

Yeah, clearly, no difference.

I feel like DVDs/Blurays already disappeared 10 years ago and are now making a comeback. Same for CDs. Streaming services don’t let you own anything, and if they pull something down, you’re SOL. Self hosting Plex and ripping my own disks has given me a level of freedom not possible with netflix et. al. Especially since DVDs are considered garbage to most people now, you can set up your own streaming service for you and your friends and family for cheap. No piracy necessary.

In particular, fear, or “terror”. You can use violence without anyone knowing, and you can create fear without violence. The fear is the key factor.

Ok THIS is the most idiocracy thing so far.

Given recent performances I think most boxing fans won’t mind seeing him being escorted back across the border

Am I the only one who thinks this is unsportsmanlike to say? If someone is worth fighting against inside the ring, then they’re worth fighting with outside the ring.

Isn’t it amazing how it’s impossible to make a bad move in 4D chess?

Paramount being capitalist is a red herring. That would have been the case regardless of trump being corrupt. Settling the extortion payment had to happen for them to stop being harassed. The fact that they want to stop being harassed…so that they can continue doing the same capitalist bullshit they would have done regardless is irrelevant. It’s not the flip side of an extortion coin, it’s a completely separate unethical practice to try to confuse and divide criticism. This is step one in fostering a “both sides” argument.

They already were. The right has been sneaking bans on ranked choice voting into many red state legislations for many years now.

You may be thinking “how could they convince people to vote against ranked choice voting?!” By piggybacking on xenophobia of course!

I feel like this thread is somehow interpreting the “bribery” payment as malicious on Paramount’s part. If a corrupt cop is going to arrest you for made up charges unless you grease his palms, you’re not being malicious or unethical, you’re not somehow getting something out of the exchange that you otherwise wouldn’t have, you’re just being extorted by a corrupt cop.

Letting perfection be the enemy of the good is why we can’t have nice things.

I feel like we’re going in circles now, so no reason to continue. I agree that that is how it should work. I maintain that it’s important the petition states the actual issue and not a percieved one. Agree to disagree.

Again, the petition was short sighted in how it described the behavior it didn’t like. Legislators will write legislation to address the issue identified by the petition. If the petition is identifying the wrong issue, then we will end up with the wrong legislation. We need to have discussion as a community to agree on the exact behaviour we don’t like. I think that’s important, you can disagree.

I mean…not that curious. It’s his entire livelihood at the moment.

The petition has specific wording about how the legislation would work. He was critical not because he didn’t believe in the cause, but because he felt it wasn’t well thought out. The reality is, art takes many forms, and sometimes you can only go see a play on the one night it’s performed if you happen to buy a ticket to see it, and that’s how the creator intended it. Art is not a one-size-fits-all field, and a half-baked piece of legislation would make innovative experiences in game design illegal.

He also pointed out the very real potential attack vector for malicious actors to effectively DOS small games at launch, ruining the experience for other players, causing the game to fail and be forced to release a means for customers to self host, only for the malicious actor to then make a profit on rehosting.

Everyone involvrd wants to get rid of scummy business practices, but this initiative is short sighted in how it describes the behaviour it doesn’t like.

To believe that? Or to believe that PirateSoftware believes that. Because he doesn’t, and the people saying he does are being dishonest and haven’t actually seen his criticisms.

Easy: VPN license. Corporations already don’t like when customers use VPNs to get around their geo locks on content. We’re one lobbying push away from courts broadly interpreting use of a VPN as a malicious violation of DMCA or CFAA.

Unfortunately, the phenomenon of social dogma that gives rise to religion has an evolutionary advantage. It’s how you get a bunch of people to focus on a common ends without spending too much time and energy being critical of the means. Humans who rally unquestioningly behind some percieved commonality get stuff done, regardless of how ethical it is. It’s why the Catholic church is immune to “cancel culture”. If any other modern institution had a documented history of figureheads systematically abusing children, they would be finished. But if everyone involved can say “that’s just the actions of a few evil individuals, they don’t represent my faith,” then they’ve achieved social immunity.

I honestly believe that until we see a belief system that emphasizes human dignity over corporate profits, we will continue our race to the bottom of capitalism. This isn’t something a democracy “reasons” its way out of, because falsifiable beliefs based in reason will always lose some argument (by design).

I think the Japanese religion of Shinto is pretty close to a best case scenario for a religion. It’s actually really fascinating. At its core is a belief that a spirit or godlike entity inhabits every single thing, living or inanimate, so you should treat everything with the respect of a divine being. But what you wouldn’t expect is, most people don’t literally believe these gods exist, they just see that practicing the religion makes their society better. In the west, we have a huge number of “non-practicing religious” people, but in Japan there is a huge number of “shinto-practicing non-religious” people. Combined with the fact that it (somehow) doesn’t have any figurehead trying to coopt it, it’s basically exclusively a net win for their society.

Btw abolishing religion is also be the quickest way to convince a bunch of people to start/join a religion.

It’s wild that they billionaires are openly just saying “whoops, we can’t be letting the people elect someone good for them, here let’s fix that”.