It’s another untapped market they can monopolize. (Or just run at a loss because investors are happy with another imaginary pot of gold at the end of another rainbow.)

Your inability to read a straightforward sentence is not my issue.

You should work on your reading comprehension.

Where did anyone say anything that resembles “make a free for all in between” in any way?

The core concepts of current laws are completely incompatible with any form of actual ownership in a digital world. You need to write new laws that start from the ground up with concepts that work.

The core concept of ownership and copying needs to change if you want anything resembling what IA did to be protected. Because the underlying premise behind copyright legislation that that any unauthorized copy needs a specific exception to be legal, and it’s impossible to use digital files without numerous copies.

That’s starting from scratch.

That’s the point, though. The law is very clear that mass distributing wholesale copyrighted works isn’t fair use. Digitizing it was the part justified by fair use “archival”. Distribution isn’t.

You have to start over and throw out the old laws. Right now there’s no framework to own a file at all (outside of actually holding the copyright). It’s always a license.

There is no logical fallacy.

It also is not a statistic. 🤷🏼‍♀️

The title isn’t a mistake.

It’s openly stating that they believe that to be an inherent feature of at least our current legislation.

IA didn’t get sued for archiving. They got sued for mass redistribution.

Easy fix.

Make blocking a poster block posts containing their articles, too. It makes avoiding nonsense easier, not harder. Then streamline the ability to share and collaborate on collaborate on curation (both “read this” and blacklists) and leave the power in the hands of the users. Once the tooling works, you could, as a host, suggest “recommended blacklists” or “recommended curators” for new users.

The bonus of this is that you can still moderate and ban clear “over the line” stuff (whatever your standards are), but stuff that’s more controversial doesn’t have to have users exactly match their instance, and they aren’t forced to migrate if their/their instances stances change. (That doesn’t mean don’t actually ban racism or malware or spam bots. You could use the same list tool to ban all that without doing it personally every time. But people who think you should ban more stuff that they don’t like would have alternate ways to handle it.)

That’s basically what comments are most useful for. When you’re doing something that’s not obvious, and want to make sure the “why” doesn’t get lost to time.

It was maybe too low for their awesome library they had at the start (though their initial pricing was still more than a lot of their customers spent in a year for movies/TV prior).

It’s criminally overpriced for their awful library now.

I get them. I don’t always answer.

I tend not to get along well with the kind of people who think I have to drop everything to respond to them, so it’s fine.

Maybe if Microsoft(/Facebook/Elon) stopped doing actively fucking evil shit every opportunity they got it wouldn’t dominate the discussion?

That was how the put them in buckets.

But I think it’s at least as likely as not that whoever wrote that rule chose those buckets to be “unclean” because people got more sick more often. “I got sick once after eating it” is still one of the biggest reasons some people don’t like seafood. Your brain is very good at turning single bad events into “don’t touch this” if there isn’t a body of safe interactions to fall back to.

Cloudflare’s (pretty good IMO) response was pretty indicative of how bad this was. It sounded a lot to me (without that low level of familiarity of exactly everything they offer) like they specifically built some new tooling just to handle this issue at scale. They definitely said that changing links on pages (without an opt in for free users, who generally are less advanced/serious) is not something that they want to do, which is good, but I do think this specific scenario justified defaulting to enabled for customers who aren’t paying for the service.

Such source code isn’t possible with the general audience service they offer, even if being open source were a requirement for credibility in any way.

You’re comparing them to a company with a long history of actively hostile behavior despite the fact that there’s never been a single hint of anything resembling hostile behavior from them, they operate from a country with meaningful privacy protections and only surrender data when compelled by their own courts (who only do so in circumstances that actually warrant it), and haven’t actually given up information that’s useful when required to because they don’t have it.

I’ll tell you what. When proton ships a product that takes a screenshot of my desktop every 5 seconds and stores it in an unsecured DB any user on my computer can access, we’ll call them even.

Not for the battery itself.

They are allowed to void your warranty, if, for example, they can show it’s delivering out of spec voltage and that damaged the SoC.

To be fair, I absolutely respect keeping the development focused. Feature creep keeps projects from getting core shit done properly.