![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
Yeah I was thinking the same, this isn’t insider trading. In fact I don’t think it’s even vaguely sketchy.
Yeah I was thinking the same, this isn’t insider trading. In fact I don’t think it’s even vaguely sketchy.
Reality is a fucking parody.
As someone unfamiliar with the law my guess would be that the DEA doesn’t have mechanisms in place to register distributors of schedule 1 substances, since it doesn’t recognize them as having any legitimate use.
This actually made me tear up a bit, knowing there is someone in congress willing to make the effort to properly educate himself on the stuff he’s writing and passing laws governing.
IMO demand implies stronger language than I was using, my intention was to simply make a request of anyone that encountered my message. I’ve only started making this request because this happening is something I’ve noticed happen for literal years, and I want to raise awareness about it, hopefully get others to notice and not make this mistake. Honestly I think the perfect solution would be for Wikipedia to implement a fix on their end, but I have no idea how to go about making a request of them like that.
The reason I ask to remove the .m out of consideration for PC users is because it actually does correct itself on mobile. It’s not a symmetrically degraded experience, it’s only worse for PC users. And yes, it’s an easy fix with kbm, but respectfully, it should also be easy for the original poster to fix it themself.
Please, anyone who reads this, stop posting links to the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn’t switch automatically on PC, and I see it happen all the time. Just take the half a second to remove the “.m” from the beginning of the link, save everyone else from the pain of having to be surprised by it and taking the time to do it themselves.
I take issue with three things about this article.
Enshittification happens when a company seeks short term profit over long term stability, usually to appeal to shareholders. Valve is privately held, so the shareholders it has to appeal to are just GabeN and anyone else in the company that holds stock, and GabeN at least has a long history of valuing quality over short term profit.
The article seems to just gloss over all the reasons online sentiment about Epic trends negative, such as controversial statements made by the CEO, missing and long overdue features that should be quite basic, and yes, timed exclusives. It just memes about how they give out free games, and now that I think about it that does stink of the first step of enshittification, and the lower cut from developers stinks of the second.
I’m much more inclined to blame Apple for Valve not bothering to support Mac, as Apple is the one that should be responsible for so many of the things that make it not worth bothering. Apple is the one that failed to make their platform attractive to gamers and is the one that made their shiny new computing architecture that is incompatible with all the existing software. It’s quite unfair in my eyes to ask Valve to support a platform that nobody else does.
Maybe the author has a point, maybe Valve will sell out when GabeN retires if he has the company go public, but until that happens I’m unconcerned. This all reads to me as someone using the shiny new word for clicks.
What I meant was, doesn’t enshittification refer to a specific process of being good until you have market capture, then being shit to abuse that market capture for profit. I don’t think enshttification applies where net neutrality does on the grounds that the telecom companies affected by it have never done the first step of being good to consumers, they have always been monopolies by virtue of being financial bullies.
Isn’t enshittification a process that occurs completely independently of net neutrality existing or not existing?
Yeah, content algorithms aren’t great, but revoking section 230 isn’t the way to solve that.
The answer seems fairly obvious to me if they really want to improve search results: blanket ban any domain owned by any company known to engage in blatant SEO spam, let them appeal after 6 months. The fact that isn’t done means Google sees profit in allowing SEO spam to exist as long as it doesn’t push too many people away.
Please, anyone who reads this, stop posting links to the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn’t switch automatically on PC, and I see it happen all the time. Just take the half a second to remove the “.m” from the beginning of the link, save everyone else from the pain of having to be surprised by it and taking the time to do it themselves.
As far as section 230 goes, that is by far the least problematic, and take note how the vast majority of efforts to remove it come from conservatives who appear to me to be annoyed that their views are being called out as harmful or hateful.
Good to know. Sad to say I don’t have much choice there unlike how I can just avoid shopping through Amazon, since it’s not up to me who hosts websites.
The AWS side of their business isn’t the side everyone complains about with unethical behavior, it’s possible to be mad at one side of a company and to boycott it without doing the same to the other side of the company. It really helps that AWS has actual competitors in a way that Amazon shopping doesn’t.
Quoting whitehouse.gov: “federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.” The executive branch contains the police as well as the various other departments that investigate potential crimes and bring actions in court against those that commit said crimes.
Since this is the Internet and this sarcasm doesn’t exist, the serious answer is that the court systems (ideally) do nothing but enforce laws. That is their job, they should be the primary organization doing that job, alongside the police sometimes, and they don’t have any job aside from that.
Pretty sure early Netflix was competing with outright piracy, so they had to keep their prices down and their service convenient. Actually that is probably the best state for a digital market to be in, where there is a vibrant piracy community keeping companies honest with both their prices and services. Because fuck the law when all it does is fuck me.
Did anyone really expect this part of the policy to stay? My understanding is that they only reinstated the nudity ban, the rest of the new allowances are still allowed.
If the complaint is that the move was politically motivated in violation of the new code of conduct, that code of conduct only came into effect a few months after the shares were bought and sold. Even then, a reasonable argument could be made that he was instead motivated by the shift in share price. Don’t get me wrong, I think the dude is a piece of shit that should step down for the good of the country, but this is not where we should be wasting our energy caring about.