That was my point too, I guess I wasn’t clear enough so thanks for elaborating. The protocol isn’t at fault, but something being a protocol (and not just a proprietary service) isn’t enough if the vast majority of the market share is being held by a few corporations.
Sadly look at email. Technically you can host it yourself but if you’re not one of the 15 or so big providers, good luck not being marked as spam before you even do anything.
The real problem is with the oligarchy controlling everything, service or protocol. This is why Threads was/is dangerous.
Why is the family of the president even a big deal? Or any deal at all. What is it, a monarchy? I guess now it is.
Supporting nazism is quite illegal in many places. In Germany for sure.
It’s simple really. If it doesn’t agree with him, that’s not speech, that’s just a barbarian’s gibberish. So the free speech is clearly preserved. Clearly.
If you insist upon saying one store is more virtuous than the other… okay? I personally don’t like defending companies but you do you.
Could you please not put words into my mouth? Neither is “virtuous” and I am not defending them. Let’s stick to the facts instead. It’s clear that EGS is being actively hostile towards Linux, while GOG is merely negligent. EGS actively removed Linux support from previously supported games on at least one occasion (Rocket League).
Not nearly the same degree. GOG sells actual Linux games with no 3rd party software necessary to play them. The same cannot be said about EGS, one simply cannot launch an EGS game in an officially supported way.
They have full legal rights to ban you for farting when the minute hand and hour hand aligned. This changes nothing in terms of what they “can” do. It’s rather their public announcement about what they “will” do. If they really wanted to ban you for silly reasons, they don’t even need these silly reasons, they can just ban you and are fully within their legal rights to do so.
I don’t think so. It’s probably what keeps it small and more personal. There is also the notion of responsibility: if a person I invite causes trouble, it’s potentially on me. Maybe not on the first infraction, but if one invites 20 spammers/cryptobros/venturecapitalists, it’s reasonable to block the inviter too.
I’m not arguing one way or another (that’s not my decision anyway), but I can understand why they do this.
You’ll probably enjoy Lobsters: https://lobste.rs/
You also can’t play the socom games from PS2, because of the idea of glorifying terrorists. Since if they win, the announcer says “terrorists win”.
Wouldn’t the same apply to Counter-Strike? Did they change it since the last time I played ages ago?
Incidentally the same labels make Gmail fundamentally incompatible with the way IMAP works causing lots of weirdness whenever you use any standard email client not specifically designed for Gmail.
How does an offline installer from GOG differ from the offline installer provided on a CD/DVD?
This is equally true for almost any game ever sold, including physical ones. You only ever own a license that specifies what you can and cannot do with the game. The difference is in what this license is tied to, for example either a physical copy of a given game or an account that can be remotely deactivated taking away all your games. In GOG’s case once you grab the installer, the game license cannot be easily forcibly revoked, just as with the physical copy.
This reasoning kind of falls apart when we consider that one or the most important rules of most religions is to convert others, or at the very least shun them one way or another. Being insufferable about their believes is a crucial part of their believes.
I’d even argue public votes can deescalate some situations, for example where both sides of a relatively heated discussion can see they vote each other up. They don’t necessarily agree but they appreciate the other side’s points.
As for the transparency, it’s not possible to list all the votes of a user, one rather needs to list votes on a given post. To profile a given user the attacker would need to cross-reference the data from all posts and comments which is computationally infeasible, both client-side and server-side.
On Kbin the votes are 100% public for anyone. I’ve migrated to Lemmy after the frequent server issues with Kbin and I miss that part dearly. It was very easy to gauge whether someone was engaging in a good or bad faith discussion by checking the votes within a discussion. That being said, personally I’m very light on my downvotes, and I can see how someone more trigger-happy would see it as worrying. Personally I see the vote transparency as healthy though.
Say what you want about him, but guy’s damn consistent. A massive asshole but a consistent one. All the easier to dismiss him as a whole package!
Not even necessarily end-to-end, just encryption. And possibly encapsulation within an already allowed protocol, like it’s extremely common with HTTP these days.