so will Mila Mozilla.

What about the Strait of Hormoooz?

What, you give male aliens a mulligan?

"Sorry, but we don't have an insurance code to cover 'sub-atomic vaporization chain-reaction'."

That's assuming that they're actually deleted as opposed to merely being flagged as deleted so that they aren't displayed anymore. Even if they did actually remove them from their database, your comments still exist on backup tape somewhere.

Eric

He's basically a newborn :-)

Yes, but there is an important difference: TV had to appeal to an average audience member. Meanwhile the social media algorithms are intentionally working against you, trying to specifically find and use your triggers.

That's quite a different intent there.

On the TV, parents could also check the program for what they thought was suitable for their kid or not. They could watch the same program, even if not in the same room. Social media is a lot more personal and a lot harder to track and filter.

Hard disagree.

Not everything is subject to hype cycles. A lot of especially the SMALLER musicians, for example, basically live off their back catalog. I routinely buy the entire collection of artists that I freshly discover and fall in love with. And I totally feel that it is right that I pay them for music they made, no matter when they made it.

What is an abomination is copyright terms of DEATH + 70 years. Or whatever Disney pushed it to by now. I'm ok with inheritance of creative work, but it should not put the children into "never have to work in their entire life" territory.

Then again, there are two aspects: Creative control and money. I think that the Tolkien estate did a generally good job of protecting the integrity of JRR's works. Well, if we ignore Rings of Power, I have no idea what lies Amazon told them to get the approval for that shitshow.

And let's not forget that coypright law is also what protects GPL software.

It's a Fonzi Scheme: Ayyy Aiiii!

What were their alternatives? They weren't doing anything about the problem so had nothing else to point to. Their lawyers can't outright lie and claim Facebook did things to try and stop them problem when it didn't, so this was the one excuse that was presented. It's no different than a murder trial where it's clear that the defendant is guilty, but the defense presents an absurd theory that no one buys because they have to have some alternative explanation. If Facebook had done more then their lawyers would have had more to work with. It's not the attorneys' fault that their client was that fucking stupid.

There's a difference between Facebook who didn't do a good job at policing their platform and Epstein who committed the acts himself. Consider that the bits were transmitted by some ISP, but that you would think it's absurd to punish them just like it would be stupid to try to put Chevy on trial because some bank robbers used a Camaro as a getaway vehicle. If you tried to charge the ISP they'd also argue that some illegal activity is inevitable. It's impossible to prevent all crime, but the law is that Facebook has some responsibility to ensure that they're not allowing it to knowingly occur on their platform.

Even if Facebook were making actual efforts to prevent this from occurring, some would still inevitably slip through because some criminals are smart enough to work around whatever efforts are made to prevent the crime. The problem here is that Facebook wasn't doing nearly enough as they were legally required to do.

Of course the stock market isn't a perfect reflection of the actual economy. If it were, Soviet style central planning would actually be possible. It's just a (usually good) estimate of it by a large number of people. Just like guesses about how many marbles a jar contains, the individual ones may be wrong in one direction or another, but the aggregate average will turn out to be fairly close to the actual amount.

The GameStop situation wasn't a good example of a Ponzi scheme. That was an entirely separate fiasco where some greedy investors got caught in a position that created infinite liability on their end where they had more short positions than there existed shares of stock. They were obligated to purchase shares at a future date regardless of price until their shorts were covered. If the price had collapsed, they would have been able to buy the shares for less than they previously sold them. However, the flip side of this was that if the market collectively drove the price up, those investors were royally fucked and they wound up losing badly. That's entirely different than a Ponzi scheme.

GameStop's price fluctuations were the result of specific circumstances that don't typically occur naturally and are unlikely to again because no investment firm would ever allow their traders to do something like that again. It will probably be a case study in textbooks for decades to come to make sure no one does something that stupid ever again. If anything it shows that the model works because it allows bad behavior to be appropriately punished which ensures others will be less likely to repeat it in the future. More generally any investor behavior that deviates too far from the underlying reality will be similarly "punished" by other investors. Those who are less able to accurately value the economy will lose out to those who are and be replaced.

They should be done away with. The ability for unelected bureaucrats to create and enforce law is unconstitutional. We elect legislators for that purpose and they shouldn't be able to rely on unelected bureaucracies to do their job either because the effect has been that they all throw their hands up as though they can do nothing while allowing these unelected bureaucrats who do not have to ever face the voters to act as they please.

If these agencies have recommendations they can make them to Congress like everyone else and it can go through the same process as every other law.

I think his point was that a person talented enough to have built this could have built something better. I'm sure you would also agree that it would be better if the average Colombian could sell cocaine to people as opposed to being exploited by a cartel, but at the end of the day the world would be better off if no one were involved in the drug trade at all. Of course there are some that don't consider illegal narcotics to be any more or less immoral than online pornography and that both are awful or that there's nothing wrong with either.

For anyone who believes that pornography in and of itself is exploitative, then at best OnlyFans is just a cleaner version of hell, or possibly even worse if it entices more people to participate who might have otherwise stayed away. I'm sure more people would try cocaine (and possibly destroy their own life through addiction) if it were sold by well-dressed young men in a clean and tidy store who would have never bought it if it meant dealing with a shady looking character in a back alley in a bad part of town.

All that aside, my condolences to his family. Having lost relatives to cancer myself, it's not something that's easy to go through. Whether you agree that this man was immoral or not, he still had people who were close to him and loved him and I hope that can find peace after his passing.