Hi - I’m a Linux newbie.

I don’t tell other Linux users that I use linux because it almost always leads to a bunch of questions that I don’t know the answer to. So let me assure you, that awkwardness is on both sides of that conversation you’re describing.

I mean, the link is right there in the screenshot: https://dubvee.org/modlog?other_person_id=4948197&type=ModBan

You were apparently permanently banned from their instance due to being toxic, and what you’re seeing in that screenshot are the individual communities mirroring the ban from the instance to the community level. What “toxic” consists of is really known only by the person who issued the ban, and whether or not you even care is really up to you. It could have been for something legitimate, or it could have been completely bogus, and I’m not going to scour your comment history to try to figure it out; chances are you know what you did, and if you don’t, it’s probably just some mod on a power trip, who knows?

I’d go so far as to say no op eds at all. If I’m paying for news, I want factual, high quality, ideally unbiased news, not some chucklefuck’s opinion. I can get some chucklefuck’s opinion all over the internet for free. (Case in point: You’re getting it right now, for free, by reading this comment.)

Looks like MacOS and various Linux distros had a deformed, illegitimate child.

Cutting spending by 20% while not reducing output will definitely accomplish that, too!

This whole thing seems so weird. Why is Meta using the courts to enforce their ToS, anyway? Theoretically, the penalty for a user violating Meta’s terms would be Meta closing that user’s account. Unless the lawsuits are just frivolous scare tactics intended to drain the defendant’s resources…

Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.

This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet. It’s not like they’re making DVDs of pirated movies and selling them on the street corner; they were basically just aggregating content and the service they were providing was making it easily searchable and accessible, not doing the actual pirating, from the sound of it, unless I’m misunderstanding the situation.

I wish I could show my country next to my username or something lol.

You could use a vanity username with a flag emoji in it, if you really wanted to.

“Hey, can you recommend a good free photoshop alternative?”

“DIE!”

Just like the good old Jraphics Interchange Format!

Plus as an added bonus we can have the ‘gif’ pronunciation disagreement!

They claimed that the FTC never alerted them to any wrongdoing before filing the lawsuit, so how could they have known they were violating the law?

“The police never informed me I was doing anything illegal before arresting me, so how could I possibly have known?”

Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense against breaking it in any other sector…

Assuming you’re making the change in your browser’s default search settings, and not editing the URL every time you do a search, it takes a minute or two once, and it’s done forever. No harder than adding an adblock rule and it also removes a lot of other bullshit, too (since it’s just defaulting you to a ‘web only’ search).

Documentaries often include recreations of events, such as historical events that weren’t filmed. It’s usually noted as being a recreation or re-enactment. If AI-created images are used instead and are noted as being such, I don’t really see the problem, assuming the images are curated to depict the scene accurately.

While that could be a worthy topic of discussion, these scenarios can be immediately addressed using a DMCA counter-notice. BPC’s creator can simply file one with GitLab and in less than two weeks’ time, the platform would have to restore it, if whoever sent the original notice didn’t sue the developer in the United States.

Who is the author of this piece suggesting pays for that potential lawsuit? Like, it’s great to say “Oh, they can totally fight this, and they’re probably in the right to do so”, but companies weaponizing the legal system is basically trivial for them to do, and unless they’re offering to help foot that bill, they’re putting all the risk on the developer which isn’t really fair.

You encounter the merchant where you can buy the MTX stuff in the first few hours of the game. You can’t even use the majority of them before reaching that point.

I would honestly bet money that they’d designed the game to not have microtransactions, then some executive at the 11th hour told them to find a way to include them, and they made them inconsequential as a sort of malicious compliance. Not that I think it’s OK to have them in the first place, it really soured me on the game initially. I think it’s considerably worse for including them, but they are completely meaningless.

Did you even read the article we’re discussing, or are you just reading the comments and getting mad?

1. No decision has been made. This is simply a judge denying the companies’ motion to have this thrown out before going to trial.
2. This is very much different than “the gun market” being indirectly responsible. This is the equivalent of “the gun market” constantly sending a person pamphlets, calling them, emailing them, whatever else, with propaganda until they ultimately decided to act on it. If that was happening, I think we’d be having the same conversation about that, and whether they should be held accountable.
3. Whether they’re actually responsible or not (or whether any group is) can be determined in court following all the usual methods. A company getting to say “That’s ridiculous, we’re above scrutiny” is dangerous, and that’s effectively what they were trying to do (which was denied by this judge.)

If we remove that it become: funnelling a market towards the further consumption of your product. I.e. marketing

And if a company’s marketing campaign is found to be indirectly responsible for a kid shooting up a grocery store, I’m sure we’ll be seeing a repeat of this with that company being the one with a court case being brought against them, what even is this argument?

Ohh u didnt report someone ur also guilty cant see any problems with this.

That’s… not what this is about, though?

“However, plaintiffs contend the defendants’ platforms are more than just message boards,” the court document says. “They allege they are sophisticated products designed to be addictive to young users and they specifically directed Gendron to further platforms or postings that indoctrinated him with ‘white replacement theory’,” the decision read.

This isn’t about mandated reporting, it’s about funneling impressionable people towards extremist content.