I apologise, but Slashdot ate my HTML.

The top paragraph is a quote of the above AC, if you hadn't already worked it out from context.

I find it interesting that this said it's not about journalism, it's about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Then I look up the page and there's half a dozen people saying it's about journalistic integrity and Zoe Quinn is just pretending it's about her because she's an attention whore.

It's almost like, if you have a decentralised movement with no obvious leadership, that you don't have the ability to say what your movement is (or isn't) about any more. So when people say that Intel are caving to the kind of idiot who thinks the above isn't misogyny, you can't say that's not what's happening, because you don't own the movement and you can't point to anyone who does.

Is it though? I'm not a lawyer, but the BBC article suggests the opposite - that because it explicitly doesn't stop you from circumventing DRM, there will be even more pressure to create DRM that prevents format shifting to protect the bottom line.

Remember this is the UK, not the US - the DMCA doesn't exist here.

Maps was an example rather than the only definitive place that it happens. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it, where Google doesn't need to as they control the results and the algorithm. Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.

I access from the UK so I can't tell if they do or don't now. I know they used to, but things have changed a bit since then.

We'll have to see the results of the new investigation, I imagine.

The trouble is in this instance, is that the people who have the decision making power (you, in this instance) aren't the same as the people who are being abused (the provider of the thing you're searching for). To say that it's okay because you have the power to change what you do, doesn't change the fact that you won't change because you're not the one being screwed.

Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.

- Person A searches for "maps", either on the site, on the phone or on Chrome.
- Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.
- Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.

Company B's previous recourse was basically, to live with it - Google have control over the entire stack, top to bottom. Companies can't go elsewhere because Google index them, not the other way around, and Google keep how they calculate popularity hidden, so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally). It's therefore up to the searchers to go elsewhere to get search results, but because Google are trusted to provide the correct answers, why would people do that? It's not the user's fault that Google dishonestly reports their results as the best even if others are better, it's Google's.

Anyway, in Europe it's against the law for Google to act in that way considering their position as provider of 66% of searches, so it was challenged. Google's solution in response to that legal action was to allow companies to pay Google to be promoted to top spot, but companies (naturally) thought that it was unfair that they would have to pay for equal consideration when Google do it to themselves for free. Now they have to come up with another idea.

I agree and disagree - we should get VR moving, but there are other projects to put resources into that won't have Facebook's history of dumping on their partners.

"Myopic geeks"? I can't help thinking I've been trolled.

Anyway, I read the blog post, as the AusGamers article was slashdotted before I got there. It mentioned nothing about what Facebook can bring to the Oculus Rift other than "resources". They also talk about long-term commitment, though I guess you would have to ask Zynga on how Facebook have delivered on their commitment to a stable gaming platform previously.

Though it's plain you didn't read the blog post he wrote (he actually states specifically that VR is ideal for social, he just doesn't trust Facebook to push the platform for games development given their history of arbitrarily changing the playing field), I was using Notch as an example. Try having a browse around, and see if you can find a game developer who is genuinely excited about Facebook's involvement.

And yes, I can't spell irrelevant. That isn't relevent to my point!

You can have all the engineering genius in the world, but when you have famous programmers abandoning the platform because of it's association with Facebook, what's the point?

If a tree falls in a forest with nobody to hear it...

To be fair, Apple are very committed to branding.

How did you get modded up for this? The Guardian says nothing about anything that is mentioned in the OSnews article.

Nothing, because they're licensed?