Meta-polls. I like it. Suggest it!

At most, we'll see a US version of every company with the sole objective of ensuring that the only information available is that of US citizens. That is, assuming anybody cares to do anything at all to protect the information of non-US costumers from US government.

Back on topic, yeah, this doesn't surprise me. And nobody will have the guts to say: "You know what, fuck you. We are out of here". Hell, if I were in their position, I'm not sure I would do that either.

It's not. Perhaps I should have made it clear which attitude I was referring to. I mean that we shouldn't (and I think it's bad) hate people who make something of themselves (or, more specifically, who make a lot of money), and that that attitude is not something you want in your area, or anywhere.

Ah, yes. That. I live in Portugal and I see that attitude show every now and then in the people. You do not want that to happen in your region. It's bad.

I wonder how hard it would be to get in that "pact" if your company manages to go beyond the start-up designation.

More than be mad you didn't post links, I'm surprised that you didn't post under Anonymous Coward (even if you claim is untrue).

There is one thing. I own a computer. I can download Python. Python has tutorials and documentation that can allow me how to do stuff in python. The thing is, unless I want to do anything beyond Read File, do some regex magic, write file, I'm going to have to spend some time learning. Doing what I just described is the equivalent of composing music at an amateur level: I can put together some chords, add a "simple" melody and be done with it. I probably don't need to learn much to do it. Of course, in the case of music, you are expected to know how to use the instrument (tool). In the case of programming, I'm learning Python (the tool itself) and what I can do with it (the chord) at the same time.

I think we can all agree that knowing Python (both the tool and what I can do with it) is about as hard as knowing how to play the guitar very well, which is in both cases beyond the scope of an amateur and tends towards the professional side.

Perhaps, the biggest issue is one of perception: writing a simple piece of software that reads a file, does something, and writes the result is usually not considered programming, but that's probably one of the most basic tasks you can do. And, given instructions/documentation/tutorials, you can pick it up really fast.

Disclaimer: I say this as somebody who can't do programming beyond what's specified, nor compose anything worth listening, and whose ability with musical instruments is not worth of mention.

In the given example (steam), there is barely anything from most third world countries. At the very least, game companies tend to be based on first world countries and hire first world citizens.

Now, I do agree with you that if you reduce cost, then either you lower prices or you can't complain when someone else sells a competing product for cheaper. But before asking for X country's prices, I would beg for a close examination to actual costs of production and transport. I would also beg for a close examination of what is being sold in X country and yours. Say, imagine that a cheap smartphone is being sold in X. You see it and think damn that's cheap. Here in Y it costs more. Question: do you get the same benefits they do as a consumer? Is the quality standard the same? Things like that matter.

But how do you solve the competition problem in the video game space when what people wants is Call of Duty [latest installment] or GTAV?

It is very hard to do anything resembling competition in video game space. Battlefield and Call of Duty, two high-profile shooters, don't really compete with each other. And there is barely any other Call of Duty-esque game that is anything around the required size (in terms of reach/popularity). Furthermore, all it takes is for the games to be released with a year between them (or even less) to simply not compete in terms of sales.

My other question would be how do you ensure those rights are not abused? By enforcing a single price worldwide (along with same-date release date please)? I'm convinced whoever that the seller is simply going to select US/EU prices. I might be wrong, though. What do you think?

Oh, of course there is also the "how about we just improve the living standards in x countries so that different prices don't make sense", but that's beyond what we can effectively do.

Sadly, that last sentence defines a huge part of our social interactions.

I heard a nice argument supporting region locking on steam. While I personally would love that there just wasn't a difference in price, the argument was actually reasonable.

It goes like this: some areas in the world get a cheaper price because these are areas where there may be lower income for the population (it makes no sense to charge 50€ for a game in a region where minimum wage is something like 100€, for example). To give you an example, it would make no sense to try to sell games in Venezuela under the same price as everywhere else because the market would be too small. If you lower the prices in that country, you can (potentially) have more costumer (even if they pay you less) instead of them being forced to buy it from outside the country or just plain pirate it.

IIRC, the same happens with the region Russia is located in. At least, that was the argument I read.

Would you have a list or know some of those? It might be something relevant for TFS.

To be honest, it should be handled by a court or an entity empowered to do so by the government, and not a private company. And yes, she would probably have to tell the people working at that place why she wants it removed, preferably with proof, so that they know she isn't trying to wipe her slate clean. Because, yes, they should err on the side of not removing. Just as the US Justice system requires people to prove their claim instead of assuming it's true (the defendant is guilty).

But this isn't what this law is about. At least, that's not what I understand it to be about. For this given example, there should be a very specific law designed to handle it properly. This is more about forgetting things that you did (and somebody wrote on the internet), and not cases where you are a victim of a crime. At least, that's what I understand it to be for.

Companies should be legally required to provide evidence of such claims. Not saying things is not Photoshopping their public persona. It's just not showing all of their public persona. If they encouraged news sources to hide/delete/not report that information, then yes, they would be.

photoshopping is a misused term anyway. We should be using manipulation. Photoshopping, as /. should know, is modification/manipulation of a digital image with Photoshop (by Adobe), a term that later simply meant manipulation of images with appropiate software and is now being extended to things that are not digital images, but shouldn't. Just as we shouldn't extend "to google"'s meaning to "search anything anywhere".

A long time ago I made the decision to live with my actions online. I say this as somebody who grew up being told to never publish anything that might ID me online. As such, I've tried my very best to: not publish something I don't want to remain on record for eternity; and if I do write something I later find... regrettable, not ask for it's deletion or it's inclusion. If somebody finds it, I hope they are capable of understanding that people change. If they aren't, I'm okay with not interacting with them (or I'll deal with it).

I can understand, however, that people do not share my stance. For them, there should be a process where the information is hidden (there needs to always be a backup, in case a later ruling/decision says there was a mistake) only if there is a good reason to do so (or, in the case of dumb things while drunk, there can't be a good reason to keep it).

Also, newspapers and other news sources should be exempt of it as long as they contain verified, true facts and only facts. As far as we know, we don't strike from history books what we don't agree with or find no longer relevant (okay, maybe we do show what we want, but that's wrong and it shouldn't be like that).