But it's ok, they won't be selling you out to advertisers, they'll show you the ads and be the middleman collecting money in both directions.

Not that it matters much, VR is pretty fucking pointless once the novelty wears off.

Facebook has been doing this since forever.

Why would he buy something near the peak of its bubble?

Besides, it is only going up like it is because people expect the US dollar to crash as America begins its second civil war. They wouldn't be digital goldbugs if they didn't entertain fantasies of collapse.

What these numbnuts are too dumb to understand is that they can't actually use their bitcoin without a functioning Internet, and not only does the president, legitimate or orangewise, have the "kill switch" at their disposal, and plenty of "national security" rationalization to use it, the infrastructure itself will be damaged by the partisan fighters seeking to deny any communication advantage to their enemies. Their stupid fantasy is unavoidably self-defeating.

Oh, look, it's Palladium 2.0.

Of course, Apple did it in phones and hardly anyone raised a fuss, and those that did were drowned out by the fanboys. Now that shit is everywhere.

Stallman was right.

We should be doing everything we can to ensure that everyone who wants to vote gets to vote, and that their vote is actually counted.

Anything less is an implicit invitation to violence.

I thought the whole point was that everyone was "non-binary" in the future because gender roles are stupid and obsolete.

Of course the "non-binary" chick looks like a woman cross-playing Wesley Crusher. Which is to say, she looks exactly like teenage Wil Wheaton wearing more than the usual makeup.

The degree to which women wore makeup on Star Trek was particularly absurd. Either everyone would be doing it, or no one would, and it would die out like other absurdities, like wearing ties.

If the show were internally consistent, there would be no trans people, because their technology would be such that no one would be identifiable as trans without a genetic scan, and even that would be insufficient if they had their DNA rewritten. You might as well cast anyone and call them trans, otherwise it seems to be making the argument that trying to look like the opposite sex but failing is the point of being trans.

And I would love to see the outrage from both the SJWs and the alt-righters if the show were to feature people changing sex for the hell of it, and not to align to a gender identity, like in John Varley stories. That would be too woke for the woke.

The botnet uses proprietary software written from scratch

I hope they don't sue the malware researchers for violating their copyright!

Though if you wanted to make it sound maximally pretentious, you should have said

The botnet is a bespoke proprietary solution

And force Apple and Google to allow rival app stores on their devices.

Kind of like how the tobacco companies hired doctors to prove cigarettes were good for you.

Gruber is a prissy fanboy who is conveying "alternative facts". The Enter key is labeled "Enter", and the Backspace key is labeled "Backspace". Nobody cares about the weird names for things in his delusional fairy land.

When the latest trend of populist demagoguery runs to its inevitable conclusion, and WW3 solves climate change for us, ham radio will be the only Internet we have left. So perhaps we should keep those skills current.

Will they block other operating systems from running on it? Is it going to be a computer or is it going to be a console like the phones?

If it is a console, then who cares?

It is neutral. Neutrality with regard to racism is to ban all racists.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Another company for the blacklist. Fuck, that's like all the big publishers, now, isn't it?

Is the fate of every cool video game company to become raging assholes? Is the only way to survive to become the bastards you defeated?

Remember that Activision was founded to give game developers the credit and compensation that Atari refused. When EA started they promoted their developers and artists like they were literal rock stars.

That comment is a bunch of legally ignorant, inarticulate whargarble, but I'll ignore all that because it is like arguing against chemtrails. Instead, I want to bring your attention to this bit:

Social media getting the best deal ever for any kind of platform or publisher

Do you see how he uses the word "get"? They like to frame Section 230 as if it were a gift, given to people by the government. And they talk about it like they're a mafia - "that's a sweet immunity to frivolous lawsuits you got there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen it."

Don't you find it a little off-brand that right-wingers are treating your rights as a gift? And not just a gift, but one contingent on compliance with their demands?

Section 230 was created to shield internet services from frivolous lawsuits, because people had already sued Prodigy and Compuserve for libel, arguing that are responsible for their users' presumably libelous messages, on the pretext that because they moderate undesirable content, they assume the role of a publisher with editorial discretion about what appears on the service.

Only an idiot would agree with that. Why would anyone believe that a message board endorses every message its users post? People's words belong to themselves, and no one is hand-selecting the thousands if not millions of messages that appear on these sites. To consider a message board to be a publisher like a newspaper is a category error. But rather than fix that anachronism of the printing press era, Congress went the easier route and patched the law to quash the moderation argument. They did, after all, have a bug up their butt about obscenity at the time, and we wouldn't want the threat of frivolous lawsuits to hamper the elimination of porn on the Internet, would we?

But because right-wingers are more likely to spout conspiracy theories and racist content, harass people, and do other sorts of anti-social behavior online, they find themselves moderated more frequently. They're so mad about it they're trying to hold the entire Internet hostage. What makes it doubly ridiculous is, if they were successful, it doesn't mean they'll get to say the things they want to, it means the moderation will become far more diligent, because their antics are precisely the kind of content that provokes lawsuits. It's like they are ugly and are cutting off everyone's nose, including their own, because it spites the pretty people more.

Section 230 is not a gift, it is a shield against a gaping failure of existing law. It'd be like calling any protection against copyright and patent trolls a gift, or protection against SLAPP suits a gift. The actual gift is the power the government gives to lawyers to extort people who lack the resources to stop them, and this is the power they're trying to take the chains off.