“You know, now that this asshole mentions it, maybe we shouldn’t host stuff from these piracy communities as Lemmy’s largest instance. That might create problems for us down the road.”
I’m almost certain that’s what actually went down, but I’m explicitly referring to the issue of people’s perception.
I genuinely think that the best remedy to this is to give SAG and the WGA everything they want in negotiations. It would fundamentally alter the economics of streaming if they are subject to the same sort of residuals and writer’s room requirements as traditional media.
If the media corporations have their way, they’re gonna break the strike by outlasting them until they “start losing their homes” from being out of work for so long that they’re forced to acquiesce. Then we’re gonna really get awful content as no one will be able to take any significant risks to write a weird TV pilot or make a unique movie.
I mentioned earlier or elsewhere on this thread that right now, the narrative that I’m aware of is as follows:
Lemmy.world users: just vibing, doing their thing
Concern troll: comes in with a freshly created account to pearl-clutch about scary illegal things
Lemmy.world users: hahaha look at this loser downvotes them to oblivion, resumes vibing
Lemmy.world Admins: Piracy?! OMG that’s ILLEGAL, thank goodness someone pointed this out to us
If they had an existing stance on piracy, they should have been already enforcing it. Then it wouldn’t look like they were successfully spurred into action by a bad-faith actor.
Like, I think people are upset about blocking the piracy communities, sure, but I think that the real issue is that it feels like everyone is just vibing, doing their thing on their lemmy instances, then this troll comes in all fake concerned about breaking rules, gets utterly piled on naturally, only for the admins in question to come in and “side” with the “loser” in people’s eyes.
There’s nothing to sue? They could go after an instance owner, sure, but I’m reasonably sure that there’s still Section 230 safe harbor protections for “service providers”, which to my knowledge could easily be the owner/admin of a fediverse instance. Perhaps it’ll need to be litigated in the courts, which is unfortunate for whoever gets stuck being the trailblazer.
Because they honestly believe women are inferior. They might not say it literally but we got the last GOP nominee for Arizona governor saying “God didn’t create women as men’s equals” so who knows
It comes from a desire to ensure that their worldview is never challenged, and people find appeal in it because it can give them a sense of purpose in life. A white woman might support Christian theocracy because she believes that she isn’t like those “sluts”, and that if she follows what rules are laid out for her she’ll find contentment.
Check out BeliefItOrNot, a YouTube channel, former evangelical child who left the church in adulthood with lots of great perspectives on this.
He could be doing a lot more to make contraceptives and even abortion accessible on land under Federal Jurisdiction. He wants to play by the “rules” though.
There’s nothing stopping him from using executive and federal power in this way except his own fears and a desire to be “normal” at a time when the United States teeters on complete backsliding to it’s worst policies in history.
Idk, I knew a dealer who used to say that people exaggerated and that none of his were more than “30%” since anything more than that is a scam, if only because of how fast you can process THC.