While it's true that publishers do something of value, the amount they charge is absurd.
What makes it even worse is that so many of the people involved are donating their labour. It reminds me of college sports in the US. The actual people doing the work, the athletes, are forced to do it for free. Meanwhile, a few select groups: coaches, TV networks, etc. are making huge amounts of money.
This is why I hate the recent trend where people are saying "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
"Piracy", or more accurately "copyright infringement" was never stealing. What you're doing is violating the government-granted monopoly on copying something. That's so different from stealing.
That's also bad. You regularly hate-watch him? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
It should only take you about 15 minutes of watching him to understand his gimmick. He used undefined and undefinable terms like "cultural marxism". He cherry picks out of context sciencey stuff to back up his point of view. He acts super serial all the time to make people think he's a serious person. That's it. You don't need to watch any more.
And, part of the reason for that is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
If a TV station or radio station has a call-in show and the caller swears, it's the station that gets fined. If the station runs a late night informercial where someone is defamed, the station is liable. But, do it online and you're fine. The YouTube algorithm can pick out the juiciest, most controversial, most slanderous content and shove it into everyone's recommendations and only the person who posted that content is responsible.
Section 230 makes sense in some situations. If you're running a bulletin board without any kind of algorithm promoting posts, then it makes sense that you shouldn't be held accountable for what someone says in that bulletin board. But, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have all taken it too far. They don't personally create the content, but they have algorithms that analyze the content and decide who to show it to. They get the protections of a bulletin board, while curating the content to make it even more engaging than a segment on Newsmax or MSNBC.
"Gotten super conservative" is underselling it a bit.
It's more like that neighbour that had all kinds of problems has suddenly flipped out. They locked one of the kids in the shed, and it sounds like the kid is still trapped there. They took the doors off the other kids' rooms so that they had no privacy because the Internet told them kids are dressing up as furries and peeing in kitty litter. They've stopped paying their bills and chased a meter reader off with a shotgun. They've started trying to rip the copper out of the walls to sell it online.
You'd call the cops on them, but the neighbour is a cop, so there's not much you can do. That's why you had to choose your words carefully when the neighbour dropped by with a gun on his hip saying the property line was drawn wrong and your house was actually on their property: and you could see that the new property line was just drawn in with a sharpie.
They are technically "police", but they get to do away with all the boring things that police normally have to do.
Some of them still work at the border doing customs work. Others are now fully dedicated to arresting and deporting people whose residency status is not OK.
I imagine it won't be long before Steam turns into the badguy.
People have been predicting Steam will do a heel turn for more than a decade. But, their consumer-friendly policies and ease of use have kept them the dominant platform despite immense spending from other companies.
They're still a store, and I don't think anybody's confusing them with a charity. But, a nearly 20 year track record suggests that they know that being trustworthy and consumer-friendly is essential to their long-term financial success.
On one hand, sure. She's a coward. She's one of the most privileged people in the US, but she's afraid. She's not doing her job because she's afraid, and that's just allowing the fascists to win.
On the other hand, at least she's admitting it. That's a small step in the right direction. You can't fix the problem until you acknowledge it exists. Being scared of MAGA is rational, and it would be good if more politicians admitted that they were acting out of fear, not because they believed in what these assholes are doing.
So, if she's scared, maybe she needs support. The US goes on and on about how the 2nd amendment is about keeping the people free from a tyrannical government. So, be like the Black Panthers. They were probably also scared. They were in a lot of danger, much more so than women or non-straight people today. But, they tried to make the other side scared too.
The term normally shortened to "Habeus Corpus" has a full meaning "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum", meaning "You (shall) have the body to be subjected to (examination)"
In most cases it's referring to a person, not a corpse. But, in this case...
merc @ merc @sh.itjust.works Posts 10Comments 3,039Joined 2 yr. ago 
That's a very nice way to say "embezzle".