Thank you, I appreciate the correction and additional information!
6,863 karma · joined June 23, 2009
Why does an LGBT creator that makes a game exploring how the Matrix is a transgender allegory have to actively distance themselves from bisexual dating simulators when I don't recall seeing anything from "Enter the Matrix" distancing themselves from straight anime girl dating simulators?
Collective Shout, the group behind this latest censorship push, also wanted Detroit Become Human to be banned because the story depicted someone abusing a child. If we're banning that, why not ban memoirs of child abuse survivors or "James and the Giant Peach"?
You suggest it would be easy for Steam and Itch to run alternative storefronts. Given that they removed content that was offensive to their payment processors, they'd need to engage with high-risk payment processors to power these new store fronts. To say nothing of the technical work involved, those high-risk payment processors certainly charge more for their services. That'd raise the already high 30% that Valve takes on most transaction.
Additionally, if a games journalism website also has relationships with payment processors, are they allowed to review adult games even if those reviews don't include pictures? Or are they going to be equally punished for giving adult content a positive rating?
This all limits the options available of responsible adult consumers and costs creators of LEGAL content revenue.
===
†Here's a longer look at your examples:
Define adult toys. I assume you mean dildos. Walmart doesn't sell those in physical stores, but they do sell them online. Additionally they, like most other stores, do sell lube, condoms, and vibrating rings in their brick and mortar store. Every clothing store that sells underwear sells something many would describe as lingerie. Target has an entire lineup of "after dark" board games stocked right next to Candyland.
"After Netflix published a marketing poster showing the [11 year old girls] twerking in revealing cheerleading outfits without any context, an online petition calling for the cancellation of the US release received more than 140 thousand signatures."
'According to a source close to the production, Pixar’s next feature film, “Lightyear” does feature a significant female character, Hawthorne, who is in a meaningful relationship with another woman. While the fact of that relationship was never in question at the studio, a kiss between the characters had been cut from the film. Following the uproar surrounding the Pixar employees’ statement and Disney CEO Bob Chapek‘s handling of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, however, the kiss was reinstated into the movie last week.'
Also, the article you linked is about the cancellation, not the merger approval that just happened today after what many see as actions to placate and/or bribe the government.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. I used Firefox exclusively for about a year and had a website not work about once a month. This included my state's unemployment portal and a small business store.
When it happens, there's no indication of why. It's only because I'm technical I thought too try it in Chrome. My non-technical family isn't going navigate that.
He's also immune from prosecution for anything he does in his "official capacity" and the DOJ has already demonstrated they're willing to claim everything, even things done in years he wasn't President, are in his official capacity. There will never be 2/3rds of the Senate willing to remove him from office and the Supreme Court is very ready to give him almost anything.
It's all a con with no downside for him -- and he can just pardon his hangers-on for anything they might do to aid him. Heck, Biden (and maybe others before him) set a precedent for pre-emptive pardons, so I expect we'll be seeing "anything you did while I was in office" pardons here soon.
They aren't sides of the same coin, so neither? They have as much in common as a balloon full of helium and the an opossum.
Folks try to create a false equivalency between landlords and creatives, but they aren't remotely the same. I generally consider this to be a bad faith argument by people who just want free things. (The argument against landlords isn't free housing, even though the argument against copyright is piracy)
Landlords have something with a limited supply and rent it to other people for their use. Access to the particular something is necessary on the residential side and generally important on the commercial side.
Copyrighted works haven't had a limited supply since around 1440 and are a couple rungs higher on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Copyright laws are, by their nature, intended to simulate the market effects of a limited supply as to incentivize people to create those works.
Have laws and vultures created perverse incentives in both markets? Absolutely. Are there both good and bad landlords and copyright holders? Absolutely.
But we could address the flaws in one without even thinking to talk about the other.
How is that not anti-vaccine activism? You can watch the clip here: https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/1770188599096639573
But, you know, we've never been able to agree as a people on what "bad things" are. So it should be, as you said, for each parent to engage in setting boundaries and being responsible.
Whoever is giving the child access is responsible, not the manufacturer. If a parent gives their child a device capable of accessing the internet with no restrictions, that's on the parent.
Pornhub is manufacturing a product and making it available to the open market, just like Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels has no responsibility to ensure a bar is only providing access to legal patrons.
In your analogy, the bar would be equivalent to a internet cafe or public library that has PCs available to patrons. Those types of businesses should definitely use physical IDs to verify patrons are of age.
To make your analogy work for Pornhub, you'd also have to argue "why shouldn't Jack Daniels have to put age-verifying instant blood tests on their bottles in case a parent puts one in their unlocked liquor cabinet?"
Because then the same concerns arise -- why should Jack Daniels be given access to my blood just to manufacture an age-restricted product? What will they do with it? Will they secure the data appropriately? How do I know it won't be used to negatively impact my future because my health insurance company doesn't like that I drank a bottle of JD?
Maybe just phrasing, but I hate the idea that we have to compromise our laws with private companies that only have to maximize shareholder value. If a law that treats the public fairly also puts tow companies out of business, so be it.
> The post carefully avoids calling this an “Our Incredible Journey” moment, but removing project hosting and user profiles is the end of Glitch as a platform. What’s left is essentially a redirect service with some backlinks (hosted on the Fastly Edge Compute Platform™, naturally). You can’t spin the removal of the core product as anything other than what it is: a shutdown.
https://keith.is/blog/the-end-of-glitch-even-though-they-say...
Plenty of web sites allow the end-user to select colors[1], or automatically derive colors from assets provided by the end-user. For those that care about accessibility, they typically calculate contrasting colors to prevent the user from creating a non-accessible experience. A built-in CSS tool like this will, hopefully, encourage more sites to provide a basic amount of accessibility while in no way hindering those who want to build an even better experience.
It would be cool if this was more customizable like the npm contrast-color package but the blog post details why they started with white/black with intentions of changing the algorithm later.
[1] Example: https://coolors.co/8fbfe0-7c77b9-1d8a99-0bc9cd-14fff7
Why would a for-profit not hurt the environment for more profit if it isn't illegal and won't get them sued (for more than they profited)? There's a rich history of them doing exactly that. Similarly, governments have done horrific environmental damage and it was up to environmentalists to create the awareness to make it stop.
I honestly don't know how you can look at a world with record numbers of wildfires, communities fighting over water supplies, and for-profit companies say that water beyond subsistence levels isn't a human right and think "oh yeah, environmentalists are looking for a reason why this water-consuming thing is bad".
Especially when the same technology could be powered in a way that doesn't pollute as much and cooled in a way that doesn't consume as much water -- if only the environment was more important than shareholders.
Early on, the job posts were low volume, high quality. I assume this was because it was only SO users who thought to advertise there. But over time, they built a sales team and ended up with the same posts as everyone else.