Pika

you lost me at W

what is the benefit of this, it seems like it just adds an automation layer that could fail that might be able to potentially be used as an assistant?

you jest but this is honestly what is likely going to happen.

so if I were to steal something just hang in a mcdonalds for an hour or two till the alert appears, then pause tracking for 24 hours and go home and hit it with a hammer? works for me.

I swear google doesn’t think this stuff through lol

Being said that doesn’t mean it can’t bounce off another person’s device on the way, so there’s that at least

they wouldn’t be there anymore I don’t think. If it was the free tier they locked photos behind the premium tier a few years back with a timer saying if you didn’t opt into premium and download your photos you within a few months they were going to be nuked, unless it was all scare tactics

doesn’t surprise me, this is the same company that held their free tier hostage when they decided to remove it by threatening the users that if they wanted their photos back they needed to buy their premium for a month

They probably were paid to change the terminology, it doesn’t look good for any website when you have the browser saying copy without tracking the URL that’s copied is half the size

I just create the lxc, and if the package requires docker I begrugendly install docker on the lxc, I’ve never had performance issues with Debian lxc, I use it as my base template and it runs flawlessly (outside of ping not working unless sudo)

That being said, I don’t like installing Docker a billion times and I feel like that defeats the purpose of using an lxc in the first place, so for most small Docker containers I just put them on the same lxc since docker is going to handle all the isolation in those anyway

I don’t ZFS though I still use normal EXT4, and I use PBS for backing it up to an external drive, but I’m curious if that may be the root cause of the issues.

I wanted to preface by saying you are the one juxtaposing the American centralization. I clearly specified US in my post to avoid the confusion of different country laws. Obviously each country has its own laws regarding it but, I’m using the US as a default, as it is a US based company. When it gets into other countries it gets sticky, obviously they need to follow other countries laws to operate, but only so much can be done. Thankfully most countries either have an equivalent to section 230, or rely on a takedown style system (including Germany), which absolves responsibility as long as it’s taken down when reported.

As for whether or not steam is using the right to refuse service, they do, but they do so when it’s reported(they even specify that in their TOS). Their content moderation system is very passive, I don’t believe the ADLs report at all because of the faulty data set it uses such as the ideology that since pepe was linked to some hate posts it can be used as a hate post detector, then directly contradicting themselves by saying that they acknowledge that Pepe is not a hate symbol in most uses and that you have to be aware of the situation.

Reading the ADL report, there’s a lot of it that I agree steam could do, but there’s things that ADL is just falsely seeing as wrong. Such as their claim they have no policy prohibiting hate and extremist groups (incorrect it’s in their main TOS) for example.

They state that steam is not doing enough for detecting the stuff, then proceed to give examples of exactly how steam is doing to protect against, such as having a Content report system, having content filters which are very clearly blocking hate and terrorist symbols, then they complained at the fact that steam had the audacity of giving the user the choice to turn off the moderation system, which is a client side setting.

Additionally I noticed they never tried to report anything, A quick Google search of other news companies reporting on the issue explains why I found. Because when it’s reported steam actually takes it down. The system works as intended, it’s just nobody in those groups want to report the group, and others haven’t bothered it seems.

Personally though, I have never not had someone who had clear hate or a terrorist symbols in their name not get banned within a day or two of reporting them. It’s only happend a handful of times, and usually it’s regarding a clear bullying case, but they almost always at the very least get community banned.

I don’t think it’s moral to be able to sue a third party for something that another user did though. Like I definitely agree they should have some sort of reporting system active which they do, but it’s not ethical to sue someone who isn’t involved for Content that someone else did.

Let’s look at it from a hypothetical scenario. you’ve decided you want to run a lemonade stand, you become popular everyone in the neighborhood comes to visit your stand. Your town unfortunately has a quite racist sector, knowing this you have put up signs saying please be respectful , we hold the right to refuse service to anyone, and not surprisingly this group decided to come visit as well, a fight breaks out between that section and another group that’s attending your stand. People are hospitalized, instead of them suing the people who caused the injury they’re now suing your lemonade stand because you never stopped people of that group from showing up in the first place.

This is comparable, steam provided the environment to allow for the posting(the stand), they provided a terms of service / guideline of usage for the platform(the signs), they provided a reporting system to be able to report the misconduct to get people banned by both forum mods and official mods(the right to refuse service), people ignored the last two systems and did it anyway, and now people are saying that they should be responsible for people ignoring the rules and doing it anyway.

Ethically, they have done enough that the system practical and should work, if people use the tools that are provided

Morally they are not responsible at all since they’re in independent third party they only provide the infrastructure and they have put practices in place to help avoid a situation like that happening, while also abiding by US federal laws which is where steam is HQ’d

Actually this is the purpose of section 230, to remove the responsibility of the provider in terms of content. The steam discussion forums would be a form of social media and therefore steam as a whole under at least US law would not be responsible for the content that’s posted on it.

Please note that this doesn’t mean that they can’t moderate their forums, section 230 does allow the owner of the platform to dictate what they want on the forums as long as they’re acting in good faith.

In my opinion section 230 is healthy for an environment, because it’s primary purpose was to prevent an individual from being able to sue the company as a whole for Content that someone else posted, which in my opinion is fair. If someone produced libel against someone, that’s something they need to handle with the person who posted it. It doesn’t make logical sense for the person to go after the platform that held the content as they wern’t involved in that process.

There is no way in hell that steam would have this happen, the amount of money they have behind them combined with the name alone, no registrar would dare disable their domain without being damn sure what was happening was actually happening.

Stream would seek the registar for restitution/compensation, and if you take the yearly Revenue and divide that by the hours in a year they are approaching the $1,000 an hour mark. Of course this number would be different if they actually took it to court. But due to this alone I highly doubt their domain Handler(Mark Monitor) would touch that claim with a 10-ft pole without doing some pretty intensive research

I’ve always been more interested in youtooz than Funko Pop’s, since they do collaborate with creators I thought their products a few times. On the streamers I watch used to have an adorable dog with a hat and it came out to be a lot better quality than I thought it was going to be

I disagree, I think the doc did care but they knew that wasn’t a battle they were going to win so they just conceded and moved on to the next patient.

There’s a saying that you can lead the horse to water but you can’t make them drink and that summarizes the scenario quite well,

if you mentioning a topic spurs the person into a 5 or 10 minute rant about the topic you’re not going to come out on top they already have too firm of an opinion. Just save your energy and help the next guy.

That’s how we were trained in selling merchandise as well, you can give your recommendations but if you say your recommendation and the customer has a firm opinion otherwise, backtrack a little bit and start focusing on the good things that the customers looking for in the product. The only thing pushing the topic further is going to do is going to aggravate them and make them lose faith in your ability to know your merchandise.

also referring to the child comment, this gives mad “look you’re my friend but you argue way the fuck much and I don’t have the energy for this right now” vibes lol

See you in two years when they attempt again

Yes please that would be amazing

I’m waiting for the planned obsidence lawsuit myself