Ok … do people not think that lawyers send out DMCA takedown notices and coerce police into taking into custody entire servers? Because lawyers send out DMCA takedown notices and coerce police into taking into custody entire servers…
I guess it would be Hetzner instances, news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32470266, and it would be Hetzner who would get contacted and potentially shut down lemmy.world in their case. Let’s not even talk about the people launching DDoS’es against lemmy.world and how they could abuse it similarly.
It seems lemmy.world has only blocked communities, not entire servers in this case. I mean, get behind all the comments calling for a migration to “avoid instances moderated by clowns” and migrate all you want (wishing migrating was actually possible instead of simply creating new users), but I personally will stay in the server who has a code of conduct that considers legal concerns and doesn’t think that just because they are on the internet in a less popular medium that will eventually grow that it will get ignored.
I’ll just move if it gets taken down for incompetence or bogus reasons anyway, because all the dumb drama doesn’t really matter in the fediverse.
People are missing the fundamental point of defederation. THIS IS A GOOD THING.
You can have an absolutely squeaky clean instance for memes, news and generally huge sharing communities. Instances that dont have to worry about DCMA notices or having their servers seized and you can have instances that are willing to run those risks for niche content. If legal threats start being thrown around, the meme and hobby communities dont suffer. The piracy instances can shut down, migrate and start again, making the lawyers play whackamole.
That’s basically the WWW in a nutshell, applied to the fediverse. The problem usually is when they start going after the people and not the sites.
What matters more is the country the people and the infrastructure are being hosted on, since that tends to determine which laws apply. The Pirate Bay has been able to continue existing because of how Sweden allows content aggregators like it to exist.
coerce police into taking into custody entire servers
Name instances where this has happened, other than on entire websites dedicated to piracy. And overzealous hosting providers who shut down entire servers over a single DMCA (especially when the site doesn’t appear to host any content) should be avoided.
But I agree that it’s his own instance and he should do what he wants with it; that’d be the beauty of federation.
n total, 10 search warrants were issued and 14 people detained or accused of IP crimes, including four who were arrested in Spain. According to Europol, the prime suspect in this case had been earning €150,000 per month and lived in a luxury villa, drove expensive cars and took luxury holidays all over the world.
really coerced them through legal proceedings, damn.
Did you miss the part “other than websites dedicated to piracy”? The kingpin was making 150k€/month from his piracy ring, not some guy running a small free message board.
Corporations invented Jaywalking to pass the problem of death by vehicle from the manufacturer to the victim. Corporations invented the concept of Litterbug to shift blame from the makers of trash to the disposers of trash. Corporations invented the concept of the personal carbon footprint to shift the blame from the makers of carbon to the users of carbon.
This is just the same thing. Corporations are good at this.
Where I live our recycling rate is pretty good and a lot of it either ends up recycled back to use or is used for energy. A lot less stuff ends up in the landfill. Seems to work alright, the rates could be higher but that’s something that varies from country to country.
In the US we can’t even recycle plastic anymore because China quit buying it. I’ve read that tons of recycled paper/cardboard just ends up in a landfill too because recyclers get too much to handle or it gets contaminated. One of the 3 “R’s” is “reduce” meaning not generating that waste to begin with, but many people only consider the “recycle” part as being all they need to do to be doing things sustainably.
EDIT: to the dumbfucks downvoting this comment I’ll clarify so you can learn something today :
uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger are not the same thing. Privacy badger is focused on blocking trackers but wont block ads.
uBlock origin will try to block trackers based on a list, but it might not be updated or exhaustivew That’s where privacy badger comes handy, it should pick up most of trackers that will go through uBlock origin.
Thanks to disclosures from Google Security Team, we are changing the way Privacy Badger works by default in order to protect you better. Privacy Badger used to learn about trackers as you browsed the Web. Now, we are turning “local learning” off by default, as it may make you more identifiable to websites or other actors.
From now on, Privacy Badger will rely solely on its “Badger Sett” pre-trained list of tracking domains to perform blocking by default. Furthermore, Privacy Badger’s tracker database will be refreshed periodically with the latest pre-trained definitions. This means, moving forward, all Privacy Badgers will default to relying on the same learned list of trackers for blocking.
I was unaware of that change, even their website still promote heuristics.
That being said, it’s not the same list as uBlock origin so you might have trackers going through ublock origin blocked by privacy badger or the opposite.
uBlock filters already covers everything privacy badger blocks. It’s better to have less extensions then more. More code that can cause security issues, which is why local learning was disabled in the first place. More is not always better.
Thanks to disclosures from Google Security Team, we are changing the way Privacy Badger works by default in order to protect you better. Privacy Badger used to learn about trackers as you browsed the Web. Now, we are turning “local learning” off by default, as it may make you more identifiable to websites or other actors.
From now on, Privacy Badger will rely solely on its “Badger Sett” pre-trained list of tracking domains to perform blocking by default. Furthermore, Privacy Badger’s tracker database will be refreshed periodically with the latest pre-trained definitions. This means, moving forward, all Privacy Badgers will default to relying on the same learned list of trackers for blocking.
It’s just using filters like uBlock Origin since the training was considered a critical security issue that fundamentally broken. The article is the devs talking about it in more indepth.
I still use both, and already knew about this change. Is it useless overkill to keep both? Probably. But Privacy Badger also enables the GPC signal to let sites know you want to opt out of data sharing under the CCPA and GDPR. (You can enable GPC in about:config in Firefox, but that’s a hassle to do on every device, and extensions can be synced across devices)
I’m sure there’s plenty of discussion to be had around the effectiveness of the GPC, but to be it’s worth it even if it’s just as a stat of users that care about data privacy. There’s also always a chance that something makes it to Privacy Badger’s Blocklist before uBlock Origin’s (although it’s probably more likely to be the other way around).
uBlock blocks things solely based on them being in a filter list. Privacy badger blocks form controls and html elements that can allow tracking. Those are different things.
Does uBO replace/block fb widgets on sites? It was the main reason I kept Privacy Badger alongside it and just didn’t bother removing when uBO just got more advanced.
You can prevent this. Click remind later then go to your notifications in the settings app. Uncheck “Suggest ways I can finish setting up” and anything else you don’t want to see.
I love that I have to go out of my way and follow instructions to undo something that they forced on me in the first place. That’s customer antagonistic design for you.
GNU/BSD or GNU/HURD would be fine, too. Or even something like ReactOS or Haiku, for that matter.
The important thing is that the OS respects you as the owner of the computer and does what you tell it to do, instead of trying to subvert your authority to serve a master other than yourself (e.g. the OS publisher or third-parties that want to colonize your property for their own benefit).
“No thanks, I’d rather complain that Microsoft advertising their other services in a totally configurable setting which I can disable is the same as the entire OS literally being an ad.”
Why do we have to take more time to disable this shit? We are not all.made of unlimited time. And yes “it only takes a few seconds”. Every time something like this shows up the seconds add up
Meanwhile when someone doesn’t want to switch to Linux or Firefox…
“Just install seventeen extensions bro, why do you need tab stacking anyways? It’s worth it to be FOSS to take three weeks to get your Arch install just the way you like it.”
You absolutely have the time, you just want to bitch.
If you hate being used by Windows so much, you really should try an alternative, unless you’re a professional that uses software that just can’t run on Linux at all, chances are you can get most of what you use a computer for working fine. In return you get freedom, privacy, choice, performance.
Or if you hate it but are too reluctant to change for whatever reason, that’s totally fine, but just say that. Don’t spread misinformation about Linux.
It’s worth it to be FOSS to take three weeks to get your Arch install just the way you like it.
Literally no one ever says this. Just use Fedora. Almost completely seamless. There’s a KDE version if you want to have the same workflow as windows without configuring anything. You don’t have to use firefox, brave or ungoogled chromium are FOSS too.
Slow it down a notch, I already use Nobara on two machines and have a steam deck running SteamOS. I’m all for open source, but the “why does windows show me annoying plebian features by default, it’s SOOOOOO horrible I have to look through and disable them manually it takes so mich time” feels kind of trite when meanwhile people complain about the time sink in learning a Linux install (even a PnP distro) is hand waived away as not a commitment.
It just feels hypocritical, like a huge blind spot in the community. They claim Windows is so hard to deal with on the most minor shit.
It’s not just about the inconvenience though. Windows is paid. It’s at least 100 bucks. It’s not even “free but you are the product” like Google drive or whatever. Yet it still abuses you, controls you and exploits you, and you have to do tons of workarounds for it to not get in your way. Most of them are always temporary, as a new update reenables everything again or directly circumvents the workaround you used.
If you are locked into the ecosystem, then I do agree that it’s annoying that people think moving to Linux is seamless. It wasn’t for me, it even cost me money since I had to buy an AMD gpu for things to work well + another GPU to passthrough to a windows VM and still use Clip Studio. But if someone only uses their computer for things that can be done seamlessly on Linux, and they genuinely dislike and are against all the bullshit Windows always does, it’s worth it to tell them there is a viable alternative, and what they heard about “you have to use the command line for everything meaningful!” or “everything breaks all the time!” hasn’t been true for years.
I guess I found the secret button to disable it, then. Because I haven’t had a single ad or bloatware style notification in a long time on my desktop. I’m sorry I just really think it’s overblown and basically a meme at this point.
I’ve had a lot of success with Nobara, it’s why I put it on my old recycle pile laptop from my last job. Not only does it just work from the get go but it has a lot of built in functionality for things like discord and game launches that I’d prefer not to spend hours messing around with on a Debian or Arch install.
You can blame the driver for parking poorly, or you can blame the manufacturer for making a massive truck that can barely fit into a standard parking space, or you can blame car-centric infrastructure for making it so that everyone has to drive, even those that are insecure about their length.
I blame all three + the driver again for buying this stupid fucking truck they probably don’t even need and won’t benefit them 99% time. But hey, it excels at killing children in driveways, so that’s something.
You purchased a device that presumably has no local storage and are upset that it needs you to login to a server that can then stream you the music?
Or is this an issue of not having a paid account?
I guess Spotify didn’t realize someone who didn’t pay for Spotify would be likely to pay 100 bucks for a device to stream Spotify, and in most cases I’d say they’re probably right.
I pay for a family account, but apparently that’s not the same as a premium account. I’d have the same problem using this device without having to upgrade my Spotify account.
A photo of a Spotify Car Thing with the text displaying on the screen under the Spotify logo: “Need a Premium account To use Car Thing you need to be logged in to a Spotify Premium or Premium Family account on your phone.”
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
If they have started charging this service fee customers will be less inclined to tip on top. So if the money from the service fee is not entirely being used to increase staff wages, then the restaurant management is effectively stealing their tips. That is wage theft in spirit if not legal definition.
You’re also making a third: that servers receiving less pay won’t go elsewhere
Whereas we extrapolate from data to understand the Sun (moving from evidence to conclusion) you are starting with your expected result and then manufacturing caused (embezzlement, lack of tips)
It’s not that we’re assuming the money is being embezzled by the owner, it’s that we don’t exactly trust that this 18%–which instead of going directly to the server is going to the establishment–will be used to solely fund wage top-ups.
It’s a very safe assumption that anybody who sees an 18% gratuity automatically added to the bill will not tip any further. Some will, but most will be done tipping at that point.
I believe you made the argument stating that this is going to reduce server’s wages and if these fees aren’t going to employees and its not the business owner keeping them, then where could that money possibly be going?
But where’s the logic and reason in this opinion? The other guy is “making assumptions” by saying this will improve conditions when they don’t have to beg for tips, and here you’re saying their wages will go down without any facts or evidence immediately after your snarky analogy about the sun’s position. Ridiculous.
That’s not the point I was making though. If the servers are tipped less due to this policy (the other person’s claim) and make less money, they’re likely to quit because serving has extremely high turnover anyway
However -
Servers regularly are tipped above “target percentages.” This is a fact - especially once you consider places with low cost-per-plate (diners etc). If you pay them 15% of total sales or whatever you’re essentially capping tips at 15%, lowering their wages.
Well I’ll ask the obvious question then - can we start removing things that don’t qualify as mild? If so, what has been the issue up to this point: That users aren’t reporting these posts, or that you didn’t want to overstep in your capacity as mod?
They did it to themselves by starting out with free journalism everywhere on the net. And then it took them far too long to finally realize that ads alone weren’t going to pay the bills. If they had stuck with the magazine rack style from the get go (pay for it + ads) it wouldn’t be an issue.
If you give everything away for free for thirty years, Then make it worse, and then suddenly charge for it, you’re going to have a hard time getting money.
I pretty much agree, but I really wish we could move away from ads being literally everywhere in our lives. I’d rather them just charge a little bit more and have a better experience. It’s probably falling on deaf ears, though, because nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet.
nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet
To your point, maybe if what we got in return were worth a shit, people would be more willing to pay. But it gets shittier and shittier, more and more inundated with ads, worse journalism with more clickbait and AI, all for prices that go up every year to multiple times per year.
It was more reasonable when you could go to the store and pay for one newspaper or one issue of a magazine. Then if you really liked it you could subscribe. Now there’s no other option but to subscribe. Not everyone wants to be paying a bunch of separate subscription fees per month just to get decent news, and not everyone wants one hundred percent of a news outlets content. But we’re charged for it regardless. Fuck no, no one wants to pay for that.
Maybe if it were one of the only things that required a subscription. Like it used to be. But now, almost every single thing we use comes with a subscription charge and there’s usually no other way to pay for it. It’s all or nothing. And it gets totally exhausting, aggravating, and ridiculously expensive, especially when they force you to pay for a bunch of shit you don’t need, or they charge you cancellation fees on top of an extra month, or raise the monthly price without telling you, or tack on extra charges for shit that should just come with it in the first place, etc etc.
My point is, no one should defend the subscription model. If an outlet does good journalism, they’ll have donors. PBS Newshour, NPR, Democracy Now, they’re some of the best souces and they’re all nonprofit. And, what do you know, none of them have actual ads.
And shoutout to local libraries to loaning current magazine issues online. I get a Libby notification every time the New Yorker comes out. And I’m sure they’re losing a ton of money because I don’t personally pay for a subscription /s
You make good points. I do think maybe if we never went down this road of everything being ad supported, then it wouldn’t be this bad. It is the world we live in now, though, and I doubt there is any going back to what could have been
You miss the bigger picture. The shut journalism and propaganda are still free - funded by … other means . That is why magazines males try to be free in the internet.
You’re also operating with the wisdom of hindsight. No one knew how to handle internet publishing. We all learned together.
Doesn’t matter how it happened, only that it is happening and everyone is disinterested in saving quality journalism.
The fact that yellow journalism is free and quality journalism is hidden behind a paywall, and the fact that many internet people are indignant about both journalism in general and paying for it while also guzzling down exclusively headlines and third hand information in comment sections through a firehose, are what will be studied in future decades about why there was suddenly a strange and convoluted anti-intellectual movement in this era.
But do paywalls actually encourage people to pay? I would point out that NPR/PBS and The Guardian are at least partially funded by the people but still offer news for free and it seems to work.
NPR is funded by underwriters, donors, government grants, and licensing their content to affiliate stations. It’s actually really interesting to see how they’ve cobbled it together. So yeah it’s free for you and me but a lot of money is actually flowing back and forth.
Point being there are a lot of ways to fund things!
My point is they don’t have to rely on paywalls. And I don’t know about The Guardian, but NPR isn’t trying to make a profit, which is probably part of it. Anyway, I use it for a lot of my news. It’s not wholly impartial, but it tries a lot harder than most American news outlets.
Fair point. I don’t mean to suggest that authors don’t deserve to be paid for their work. And while the article discusses Google and Amazon’s attempts to manipulate online behavior to drive up their profits, I remember a time when paywalls were a rare exception rather than the rule while reading articles online.
That’s because there was a time when everyone had print subscriptions that were healthy, and the internet just gave them extra money for ads. When you start losing subscribers because everyone is looking at your shit online for free, you learn you need to charge for it.
Don’t get me wrong, actual journalists deserve a great wage. I just haven’t seen much of it worth paying for in recent years. Real journalists get locked up and it looks like the rest took that threat very seriously. I’m not going to pay money to read corporate puff pieces and controlled opposition.
The Atlantic is a pretty reputable source. And I think there’s a difference between subscribing to news for news reporting like the New York Times, The Guardian, etc, vs subscribing to magazine like the Atlantic, New Yorker, or New Republic that will give you more political commentary and analysis. Both have a role to play and both need subscribers. I subscribe to the Atlantic on and off (I’ve kind of rotated between the atlantic, new republic, and the nation over time). Primary subscriptions for my household are the New York Times and New Yorker. Then I have my annual membership/donations for NPR and PBS. Gotta support the news and good political commentary. It’s holiday season soon. Subscriptions make good holiday gifts.
The Atlantic often does long, in-depth stories and has proven to be a very reliable source. Their journalists have proven themselves in getting some great sources. Just in the last couple of weeks admissions by John Kelley and Gen Milley have proven stories The Atlantic broke 2 years ago with anonymous sources were accurate and credible.
I've bought people very nice phones for under $400 multiple times. Recently.
Flagship phones are grossly overpriced. The midrange is super nice and usable these days, though. It's a side advantage of phone tech standardizing so much. And as you said, being a necessity for daily life it's probably okay to spend at least a few hundred on one you're going to use for several years.
Is this going to be another "the US has weird ideas about consumer goods" thread? Because it kinda sounds like one.
mildlyinfuriating
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.