struant

Maps was originally an acquisition.

Advertising and paid promotion in any form has never been ok. It has always been a cancer on society. That is what happens when you ignore a mild symptom until it metastasizes into something horrible. We need to ban it completely.

Just say the whole internet is not for kids without adult supervision and leave it at that.

It doesn't even matter if you can get something that technically works. Half the "age appropriate" content targeted at children is horrifying brainrot. Hardcore pornography would be less damaging to them.

Just supervise your damn children people.

How about just "Don't allow advertising period"?

Why is doing a task with a machine suddenly objectionable when the same task performed by humans is perfectly fine?

Unless the purpose and value of the video is solely distribution of the copyrighted music it should be protected fair use. If copyright holders don't like it they are free to not license their music to be played in public ever.

That is really good point. The court is basically giving them permission to do this, by asking them to not have net neutrality.

Their curation blows. The whole premise of having a canonical answer to a question is dumb. Most programming languages and libraries are always in flux. The whole nature of many questions changes over time.

StackOverflow is a tyranny of mediocrity. It is a bunch middling programmers shitting on newbies, and driving away experts because you get severely punished for not being mediocre.

I had a question closed as a duplicate for being too similar to another question that I directly cited in my question as being sublty different and not applicable. (Because I anticipated some idiot closing my question...and they went and did it anyway)

They can't fine starlink if they have no presence in their country. They already did those other things and people are still using starlink systems in their countries. There is no other recourse for them.

Starlink can see the packet traffic. They ought be able to analyze which dishes are on each side of the conflict. Even if it isn't perfectly accurate, a rough blacklist would help Ukraine tremendously (by hurting Russia). And if Ukraine complains about any that aren't working they can unblock those specifically.

I am not belittling them. Just recognizing the fact they have no power to enforce anything on starlink.

It's not about what they "deserve". It is about what is physically possible.

I would love it if pirate internet via satellite that cannot be controlled by any government became a common thing in the US (and everywhere in the world). Unfortunately the US does have the enforcement capability to tell starlink what to do.

What is an African country going to do about enforcing anything to do with starlink other than confiscate hardware within their borders? Whine to the UN that someone is competing with their local telecom?

You must have read a different article, because "starlink doesn't like it" is the only justification or explanation the article offers for their stance. And that is neither a valid justification nor an explanation.

Then it is up to the local government to confiscate their starlink hardware. There is no reason for starlink to respect every single legal jurisdiction's rules. They only need to deal with wherever they connect to ISPs.

Why do they give a damn if people are subscribing in the US and using their product in Africa?

If anything they should be using their position to obliterate the whole idea of region-locking anything.

Why do you think the consent of someone relaying information matters in the slightest when it comes to what people do with that information?

You can also reduce your attack surface (dependencies).

I would say that is unfair because their actual platform is deliberately sabotaging any kind of functional governance and refusing to change any government policy that is clearly broken and in desperate need of change. Obviously they won't admit that. But that is what they have been doing for decades. They wouldn't want to accidentally make things better for people because then they can't campaign on fixing the problems.

Is it mostly spam that makes you think moderation is necessary or is it something else?

I ask because I have some ideas about how to implement a moderation-less reddit-alike. (I think I know how to eliminate spam)

In order for there to be a victim, the deep fake needs to be distributed and passed off as real.

Creation alone harms exactly nobody.

Ineffective and barely enforced.

To clarify, I am only talking about direct financial benefit (capitalist ownership). But it has to be backdated to the owners at the time range when wrongdoing occurred. That way you can go after people who sold (for profit) their stock before the wrongdoing was discovered.

Financially punish the capitalists who benefit from crimes and the executives that are currently getting away with crimes won't continue to get away with anything. (Laws and regulations will change rapidly when money is on the line)

Punishing only the people responsible for the crimes is a losing strategy. You have to eliminate the demand for that behavior. Because there an endless supply of morally corruptible people to take the fall so that capitalists can gain.

The people benefiting from any behavior ranging from deceptive to criminal should be at least partially held liable (at minimum to not receive any profit whatsoever from those misdeeds).

Will this change investor behavior and industry culture? Yes, and that is not only a net good but absolutely necessary.

If you want capitalism as a financial system then holding the capitalists liable for wrongdoing that benefits them is the only way you avoid turning the planet into a hellscape.

These fines should just be paid by shareholders (backdated to whoever profited from their misdeeds)

It is trivial for a wealthy person to be treated like everyone else. They just have to ditch their money.

Unless they want do that, they can endure extensive scrutiny.

I am not aware of any laws in the US about selling books that are only text (no pictures) to minors.

The only "banned books" lists apply to school libraries/librarians.

I cannot possibly see what the justification would be for such a law. It's just words. It is no different than saying 'fuck' in front of a minor. It is clearly protected speech.

There is no requirement to make money to have a successful open source project.

That being said. Monetizing open source is fine so long as people are up front about from the beginning. People are upset because switching the license is effectively changing the rules in the middle of the game.

It is like going out to a restaurant and in the middle of your meal they change policy from having free refills to charging per cup. Either policy is fine, but changing policies is a scumbag move. A lot of people would have never sat down to eat there if the extra drinks weren't going to be free. Especially if free drinks was the sole reason a lot of them were going there.

Does it matter if you intended to do something nefarious all along, or if you just now saw an opportunity to be nefarious? All that matters is that you are doing something nefarious.

You don't have to be 18 to read smutty literature.

No more limits to financial liability. That is the legal solution.

Nothing is going to get fixed until there are real consequences for the people with the power to fix things.