Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SP
Posts
0
Comments
122
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The Platform Most Favored Nation policy employed by Steam is the one at issue in this case. And yes, it is anticompetitive. It abuses userbase size to prevent alternative marketplaces from providing fewer services for smaller cuts

  • Yes, that is problematic. Not by itself, but coupled with a large captive userbase it is. As an example:

    Let's say you want to start a game marketplace, which simply runs a storefront and content distribution—you specifically don't want to run a workshop, friends network, video streaming, or peer multiplayer. Because you don't offer these other services, you keep costs down, and can charge a 5% fee instead of a 30%.

    With Steam's policy, publishers may choose to:

    1. List on your platform at $45, and forego the userbase of Steam
    2. List on Steam and your platform at $60, and forego the reduced costs your platform could offer

    Obviously, pricing is much more sophisticated than this. You'd have to account for change in sales volume and all. Point is, though, that publishers (and consumers!) cannot take advantage of alternative marketplaces that offer fewer services at lower cost.

    The question the court has to answer is whether the userbase/market share captured by Steam causes choice (2) to be de-facto necessary for a game to succeed commercially. If so, then the policy would be the misuse of market dominance to stifle competition.

    And I think Wolfire might be able to successfully argue that.

  • I was under the impression that the policy required a game's price to be the same on all marketplaces, even if it's not a steam key being purchased. I.e. a $60 game on steam must sell for $60 off-platform, including on the publisher's own launcher.

    I just went to double check my interpretation, but the case brief by Mason LLP's site doesn't really specify.

    If it only applies to steam keys, as you say, then I agree they don't really have a case since it's Steam that must supply distribution and other services.

    But, if the policy applies to independent marketplaces, then it should be obvious that it is anticompetitive. The price on every platform is driven up to compensate for Steam's 30% fees, even if that particular platform doesn't attempt to provide services equivalent to Steam.

  • Several of the [former] board members are affiliated with the movement. EA is concerned with existential risk, AI being perceived as a big one. OpenAI's nonprofit was founded with the intent to perform research AI safely, and those members of the board still reflected that interest.

  • It bugs me how easily people (a) trust the accuracy of the output of ChatGPT, (b) feel like it's somehow safe to use output in commercial applications or to place output under their own license, as if the open issues of copyright aren't a ten-ton liability hanging over their head, and (c) feed sensitive data into ChatGPT, as if OpenAI isn't going to log that interaction and train future models on it.

    I have played around a bit, but I simply am not carefree/careless or am too uptight (pick your interpretation) to use it for anything serious.

  • Adding: TLS is actually a pretty apt analogy here.

    You could make a chat server that just accepts plain text messages over a TLS link, and that's basically the same security topology as with this Beeper bridge.

    But no one would call that a E2EE chat.

  • Sticking two E2EE tunnels together with a plaintext middleman doesn't result in a single E2EE tunnel.

    The reason the distinction is important is because the security profile is vastly different—a compromised server leads to a compromised message—which isn't true for actual E2EE services like a pure Matrix link.

    Side note: the first thing you should ask of a "end-to-end encrypted" product to you is "which 'ends' do you mean?" I've seen TLS advertised as E2EE before.

  • That is one theory, based on a conversation captured on another (not-directly-involved, but on-site) office's bodycam footage. It isn't really conclusive, it's on-scene hearsay from what is likely the downstream end of a game of telephone.

    The more productive avenue for discussions, in my opinion, is to consider whether firing pepper balls at non-violent individuals is perhaps negligent or reckless use of force, that escalates the situation without solving anything.

  • There is a theory based around how ocean tankers' exhaust historically included sulfates, which can actually seed cloud formation.

    Recent emissions regulations reduced this effect, so fewer clouds are being seeded over the ocean, and the oceans are absorbing more sunlight and heating more.

    So we were basically painting large swaths of reflective clouds over the oceans, masking the heating. And now we're seeing unencumbered heating effects.

  • Isn't the competitive price match policy a symptom of their monopolistic domination?

    Amazon uses its vertically integrated distribution to provide faster shipping. But their marketplace has a higher cut (5% iirc Edit: 15% average). The price match prevents sellers from adjusting Amazon listings to compensate for those fees, forcing the decision to (a) sell at lower margin on Amazon, (b) don't sell on Amazon, or (c), raise the price across all marketplaces to maintain margin.

    Rather than holding Amazon prices down, it pulls prices on other marketplaces up. It's an abuse of the inertia of a large customer base to prevent competition by other marketplaces on the basis of a different blend of cost and delivery service.