Uriel238

This raises one of the problems with company-sponsored media that has been a problem since Pulitzer and Hearst. Your bosses and sponsors will always have opinions about what news is fit to print.

So during the cold war never a bad thing was said about GE (we bring good things to life!) despite how they were pushing our elected officials to buy more nuclear warheads, even when we had plenty. GE bought a lot of commercial time from all three networks and no one wanted to disrupt that cash flow.

This might be a benefit from federated social media, that burying a story becomes impossible requiring only a bit of vigilance from its end users.

If we just left it at that, I'd agree. Reddit had a handful of right-wing media watch subs that would track and report when someone said someting egregious, legally gray or in light with the fascist movement identity (e.g. mythical history to justify legitimacy.) That can not only be used to expose their mask-off faces to the public, but in instances where incitement or threats turn into action, it can be reported to investigators to help track down key players.

So, much the way backpage was helping law enforcement track human traffickers (who did business on backpage) we have the option of leaving them be, but to exploit their intra-sect candor.

Subnautica is entirely a cautionary tale about the hazards of diving (without even decompression sickness or nitrogen narcosis). I died most by running out of O2 scrounging in wreckage, or underestimating the medium-sized toothy fish. Still. It's dangerous!

Ima say the Titanic claimed a few more lives. In First Class, no less.

A vault or filing cabinet.🗄 Or, every file can track all the state-changes with every keytype or click and update the permanent file whenever there's a pause in activity.

My dad was an astronomer, and as a toddler I thought it was the funniest name for a star. Then the movie came out and I was bugged that they misspelled the name for the promotional posters (but not in the movie itself).

If you're in the US, the police can search your home anyway if it thinks it has cause to do so. Misinforming a judge in order to get a search warrant and permission for a SWAT raid is routine in the US, and just a matter of whether they're looking to harass you and your neighborhood. Misuse of dubious informants is common. In this case, cause to do so tends to be more about assets that the officers can seize than sufficient crimes require intervention. US law enforcement likes big convictions, but it likes lootable money and assets even more.

Normally, copyright infringement is not grounds to raid someone's home, and while corporate lawyers will send nastygrams when your IP addy is found on a seeding list, that is not sufficient proof that a given individual in that house is responsible. Still, once the police decide you're a bad guy they'll look for something, anything to pin on you, and are allowed to lie to you in the process of investigation (or torturing a confession out of you), so shut up and ask to speak to your lawyer.

In the UK, it appears the police are even less regulated, given parliament has sent brute squads to news agencies to dispose of embarrassing data.

In both cases, it's a matter of being too small to be noticed by law enforcement (or too expensive to media companies to prosecute).

If you are a big enough fish, a media company will hire ICE (that is the US Immigrant and Customs Enforcement) which hires itself out as an all-purpose brute squad with police authority, when it's not hunting for immigrants. ICE flew to New Zealand to Raid the Kim Dotcom estate in January 2012 (which we still hypothesize was less about piracy and more about a new music distribution system that was going to compete with the record labels). Note that the shotgun blast of charges against Dotcom didn't include copyright infringement, but were ambiguous like espionage, conspiracy and violation of the CFAA all of which are difficult not to do if you're a normal person on the internet.

You're right that I should have specified the US, and will edit my original comment.

It's not a crime in the US that has state-served sentences like fines or imprisonment, rather is a civil infraction. Granted, the media trade organizations like the MPAA and RIAA would very much like to make copyright infringement felonious, but that could easily lead to overenforcement and filling our already impacted prisons even more.

I've heard the European watchdogs are more severe and will go after grandmothers who play radios too loudly regarding public performance regulations.

But we're in an era in which states are passing laws to make persons illegal or strip them of their rights, so we can't rely on the state (any state) to fairly assert how their populations should behave, and Disney has been an IP-maximalist shit since the mid 20th century.

So our respect of legality should only extend to what can and will be enforced. The Sheriff of Nottingham does not deserve our obedience. (Prince John neither)

Copyright infringement is not a crime. It's grounds for a civil suit, but it looks really bad for Sony entertainment to try to bleed tens of thousands of dollars from a poor family trying to watch a movie they couldn't afford to watch in theaters.

Possessing or viewing CSAM is so severe a crime, you need a lawyer to dispose of it. To not do so is to stay in possession of it, which is a felony. To destroy it is destruction of evidence, which is a felony. Your only recourse is to stuff it in an unmarked box, and ask your lawyer to anonymously hand it over to the local precinct. It is essentially social toxic waste.

ETA [rant] Note that a) Sony (and all the other major studios and publishers and record labels) gladly pirates IP that is not theirs, and also underpays the people that produce their content. And b) Sony freely engages in dark patterns and odious TOSes which is one of the reasons I haven't been able to play Sony games in years. So it is actually more ethical to pirate Sony content (or again, that of any major studio, record label, publishing house or AAA game company) than it is to pay the company and support their ongoing abuse of workers, end consumers and the market.

Also there is one thing you can do to them that is worse than pirating their content, and that is not pirating their content. [/rant]

McDonald's is notorious for suing any food-related company with a name starting with Mc or Mac, for trademark infringement. McDonald's lost to McNally's, a steakhouse in California, but I have to assume they've won enough to persist the policy.

Although in the 2010s it was observed that copyright lawyers on retainer to movie studios and record companies were over-eager to report infringement to media platforms even when it was obviously unintentional and not useful for piracy (e.g. dancing baby videos.) And Disney has a long wretched tradition of suing daycare places for wall murals long before the internet.

So this might be a matter of retained legal teams keeping themselves busy with overvigilence, since overenforcement makes such companies look like abusive dicks who deserve to be pirated (or worse, deserve to be not pirated).

Anyone who is a Republican at this point is actively supporting the white power / Christian nationalist movement and the fascist takeover. That is to say, they're in support of the purification movement and genocide whether or not they personally believe in the culture war or are a fiscal conservative loyalist.

43 years of failed fiscal conservative policy only served to accelerate the Republican party toward fascism and the Trump takeover of the GOP during the 2015-2016 primary. So it essentially was fascism all along.

Well Musk absolutely was this stupid. We has content moderation experts lay out in specific detail how not to fuck Twitter up. And he totally fucked Twitter up in the way we were warned would happen.

I think these guys are just so far removed from us normies as to have no context how or why their companies