mephistophocles’s Techdirt Profile

mephistophocles

About mephistophocles




mephistophocles’s Comments comment rss

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Super Friends

    ...and Zuckerberg isn't powerful. I know you millenials all clutch your smartphones in horror whenever anyone whispers it, but there's a real easy solution here. Ready? Don't use Facebook.

    It and every other "social media" platform is only relevant as long as it has users. Leave, and manage to scrape by without it like every single other human being did quite happily until a few years ago (and a few of us still do), and the whole debacle becomes pretty damned silly.

    The WORST solution here is a government breakup. We don't need one. Just delete your account. Don't give govt the power to destroy things you're too weak to give up on your own.

  • May 4th, 2019 @ 11:47am

    Re: Sounds like evidence of institutionalized racism.

    It is bigotry, but not racism persay (because it's not against a particular skin color or ethnicity). It's against the poor. Latinos and blacks unfortunately tend to be disproportionally at the bottom end of the financial spectrum (mostly for reasons that aren't their fault, which I won't go into here), and that's why this kind of thing is often being perceived as rascism against a particular ethnic minority.

    Ironically, I think most cops do assume that a member of a racial minority who isn't obviously rich must be a criminal - although that's starting to change, since the growing wealth disparity means being white doesn't automatically mean you're financially comfortable. Regardless, the point remains - if you're poor, (bad) cops will generally treat you as sub-human, and vice versa - and so does the government in general.

    In Amerika, money = power = freedom. Without money, you'll have neither power nor freedom.

  • May 4th, 2019 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re:

    True, but I think DRM is just a lazy "solution" to the problem, and like most american "solutions" it's way more concerned with increasing profit than actually solving the problem. I think the YOTD devs did a great job with the tools they had at the time, but piracy isn't nearly as hard to combat now, thanks to most people's access to broadband, with no impact to a legit user. It's not unreasonable to require buyers to have an internet connection, especially when the method you're using to prevent piracy consumes minimal bandwidth. That's very doable and zero impact for 99.9% of gamers.

    I do think, though, that the only really effective "cure" for piracy theft is to turn the gaming community against the crackers. Big publishers have mostly shot themselves in the ass by instead implementing really bad solutions (like DRM, mass lawsuits, etc) that turn the gamer communities' ire on them (the publishers) instead of the crackers. Partner with gamers instead, reward them for not supporting pirates, and show them the impact thieves make on everyone's enjoyment, and gamers might start seeing pirates as the enemy instead.

  • Apr 20th, 2019 @ 3:48pm

    (untitled comment)

    Nobody else is saying it so I will - what if these "mistakes" aren't mistakes at all? This is one of the largest tech companies in the world, with some of the best devs on the planet working for them, and they screw up in this basic a way? Twice?? <br>

    Seems unlikely. Another explanation might be that this was more a "do it and ask forgiveness later" situation. Maybe the whole point was data collection, privacy be damned, because they knew they'd never be held seriously accountable anyway.

  • Apr 17th, 2019 @ 9:30am

    Obvious answers...

    Sometimes the most obvious and simple answer is the right one. Comprehensive, foolproof content moderation, on an open platform the size of youtube, is impossible.

    Therefore: This whole discussion is moot. We can either have open platforms like Youtube and accept that people might see offensive shit sometimes, and be ok with that, or we can destroy open platforms like Youtube (in any number of ways) and therefore a lot of beautiful things (like freedom) in the process, and be ok with the collateral. There's no middle ground.

    I'll just submit for consideration - it really isn't any easier for kids to view porn and gore now than it ever was, if their parents care about their well being at all. It's just as hard for a kid to sneak a look at a PC in a closet as it was to sneak a look at Penthouse in a closet 30 years ago. This problem isn't new. All that changed is the medium - it's being used as an excuse to remove a freedom that was always there before, and society was no worse off for having.

  • Mar 26th, 2019 @ 11:09am

    Re:

    The solution to this kind of thing is not to stop voting for the people who championed it, guys. Assuming those votes are counted, it doesn't matter - if voting could change anything, it wouldn't be allowed.

    The internet is dead - long live the internet! Find another way to communicate - a new free way that allows free speech. Yes it can be done. The internet didn't exist 30 years ago. People still communicated just fine. Anyone who had told me, 30 years ago, that the internet as it exists today would be in place in 2019, I probably wouldn't have believed them. What will exist in 30 years that doesn't today, and that you would think is crazy if someone told you?

    I'm not excusing those who made this directive, but this is the natural way of things, or has been for at least 100 years. Innovation occurs, it has a "free" period of use, regulation begins to grow and eventually takes over, then then there's a period of high regulation before the thing dies (and is reinvented as something unregulated).