You are peddling myth. Most countries that have legalised and well regulated sex industries have very throughly studied their industries and only show regulations reduce the harms but don’t eliminate them nor bring them into norms deemed acceptable outside of it. PTSD , rape, violence, crime and trafficking remain a significant problem well above the rest of the population. It is an industry that even at its best thrives with exploitation. This is not an ideology informed truth or some moral panic that sells it is what every single bit of research shows, at best there is a reduction of harm nothing else.

Sex work has always happened, but the acceptance at a modern industrial scale not so nothing wrong with wanting to regulate an industry. Saying making sex work illegal harms sex workers is paradoxical, sex work harms sex workers and sex work harms punters. Lots of studies and research we conveniently downplay in such discussions proves that, not that that wasn’t obvious. The solution here isn’t a black making it illegal or white normalising it. It should be like smoking, shunned because of the toxicity to the individuals involved and society as a whole but legally tolerated while controlled because of the alternative. Hookers and pornographers should work out of well regulated brothels and no advertising or private selling outside of a licensed environment. You get your cake and eat it too.

You know what the worst crime of ai is? It gives people like you who cast lazy aspersions against others with it any time they fail basic comprehension. In your case I would prefer an ai would explain this conversation to you because maybe then you’d have the capacity of understanding the conversation being had here.

Again the only loss so far in the us ea/apple cases were relating to anti steering of their payment gateway and their behaviour surrounding the enforcement of said steering. All of this was a California only win for ea and a not federal one though apple hasn’t so far decided to limit that outcome to California. No they can’t prevent apps from telling them about alternative means of in app purchasing by redirecting to third parties, no commission on alternative means of in app purchasing by redirecting to third party and no they can’t ban apps for it. None of is this relating to allowing competing app stores on their device. No, in app purchasing by redirecting to a third party is not analogous to allowing third parties to sell and install apps on their device through their own on device store front.

Just for you I got ai to rewrite summary for the above just because you love ai so much : “ This is a narrow, California-only win about anti-steering and external payments. It is not a precedent for third-party app stores or sideloading. Apple lost a finger, not a limb — and they’re still the gatekeepers of U.S. iOS app distribution.”

I just looked, the only thing they lost was the appeal to dismiss the monopoly case.. I think you’re mixing this up with their loss about the anti steering laws in California by banning companies that violated its payment policy.

That’s the real issue here I think, google and co will do to ai that they did to search.. you’ll get a response alright, right after this ads or integrated into the text of the response.. in fact it will probably end up that you’ll get paid responses.. like.. you ask it what’s a good product for x and it will tell you about how much better Kia is than Lamborghini this all will be tied into social media activity too.. it will start insisting that the only ethical neutering involves neuticles (tm) after a while governments will step in and define for ai what it’s allowed to say (like how the west bans all non western news sources from being quoted in results ) and some rich dude will get some kind of disease and then try convince the public via ai that it’s actually not a disease but exists on a spectrum bc he flooded the net with fake articles that look legit to an ai.. the new war will be about who can produce the most ideologically correct ai..

Oh ? They do? Like who and what?

Well, combine that with google shopping, maps, search etc and google is practically merging the internet as a data source it doesn’t pay to do the service of the sites it steals from. Want to book a trip? Buy a product ? Find a place ? Took a picture? Made a video? Wrote a email, story, book? Let google repackage the content, logistics, work and give it to others completely leaving you out of the loop, well sort of, they’ll assign an allotted bandwidth of traffic after they sell it first. They will use its position to analyse all value to extract from you and your clients and then compete by with you and bypassing you to extract all of it. The search engine should be separate to the answer engine and alphabet should loose control over google.. its shopping , maps etc broken off into separate entities.

Apple should ban side loading and close the App Store. Bring back specific popular apps as part of a subscription service. If you want a app on their device you must convince Apple to but or Commission it. Apple becomes your customers. Developers must buy dev kits if they want to develop outside of the emulator. Safer ecosystem , still enables development both formally and informally but gives apple control while removing marketplace monopoly off the board. No market place no monopoly. Just shift the customer relationship from b2c to b2b. Sure initially youâ(TM)ll make less money but over time more through rebilling. Do this in countries that are market place hostile.

Half correct, for a few decades the west has been disposing its waste in Asia, Africa and South America for “processing” where it ends up in rivers..

This precisely the issue.. there is no difference really it costs apple shelf space in their store. They store, serve , maintain and have teams that review submitted software, there is an incurred cost to apple for epic putting in their little marketplace. Fortnite’s entire monetisation strategy is to give the game away for free and then sell items inside the app in a way that excludes the store from _ever_ taking a cut. A court effectively ordered Walmart to keep stocking coke , after deciding to end the relationship, and incur costs for serving hundreds of millions of people after coke gave them means to pay cheaper without Walmart taking a cut. Coke effectively got given permanent costly shelf space and the right to independently sell its products without the store taking a cut. It’s on little mini mart inside a minimart that doesn’t pay rent.

Tim Sweeney, if you or any of your people are reading this; pray to whatever deity you can that apple isn’t this petty. Tim Cook, if you or any of your people are reading this; how are you not already started the process?!

Take it a step further: picture walking into a store, browsing products on shelves, and some item have a QR code that lets you buy it directly from the manufacturer, cheaper, with no cut for the retailer. Or because you stock Coca-Cola, Coke gets the right to run a mini-store within your shelf space. Or owning a mall means you’re forced to let anyone open a store on your property. That’s the real-world equivalent of what’s now being challenged digitally lately. And let’s not pretend this boundary hasn’t already been breached. DRM rules meant for media have found their way into tractors and car engines etc. Right-to-repair laws are constantly under siege by companies citing digital security on physical items you bought.

It will though be interesting what the knock on effect will be outside of IT. It’s a question of who owns the customer relationship, the platform or the provider. The ruling against Apple sets a precedent that ripples far beyond mobile apps. What happens when the same logic is applied to smart TVs, game consoles, or social media ecosystems that lock down app distribution and payments? Could platforms like Meta be forced to allow third-party monetization? What about Tesla? And what about physical analogs, malls or big-box stores that impose payment systems or exclusive terms on vendors? If digital platforms can’t mandate their own walled gardens, how long before the same principles challenge other tightly controlled ecosystems?

To be honest, fake empires are way better than real ones. I mean, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the last few years have actually been great. The global reaction to Russia has been one of the most liberating periods in decades. It pushed the West to begin relinquishing some of its last colonial holdings in Africa (we’re still working on the rest), gave countries financial freedom in choosing which currencies to use, and allowed for international trade without direct Western involvement or paying tribute to former colonial powers. The various trade disputes have opened the door for more players to compete, as markets scramble to replace traditional suppliers. Best of all, while the West is isolating itself by censoring major international news organizations under the pretext of funding structures, the rest of the world isn’t doing the same. That means we can now reach a broader consensus, one where even the so-called Western untouchables are finally touchable. I get why this would be upsetting to westerners but that empire with America at its head is far far more consequential to the rest of the world than any fake Russian one :) maybe the west will be less likely do things or support things like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Palestine etc if one or two countries in their territory end up similarly molested by outside forces. Real empires are nasty , oppressive dominating things.. that those that have them should be ashamed of.

Except that’s not the case with the mentioned example channels they don’t bait and switch. It’s nothing but a type of meme. People do actually actively watch this type of content and it’s making the real ones less effective. That’s why this is happening..