Do we have an idea of how hard they're working to ID people? Did the people accused of pirating media do anything to hide themselves? Would a VPN have been enough to make it too difficult or annoying to track them down?
Edit, from TFA: "“This decrease results from a plurality of factors, such as the positive impact of the graduated response procedure, the transformation of practices regarding the consumption of cultural works on the internet, the acceleration of the dissemination of legal offers during the year, or even increasing use of workaround solutions (VPNs) by Internet users,” the regulator explains."
I have this feeling that they go after seeders that go above a certain threshold.
Looking into 2.6M individuals, determining that the offense is real, figure out the possible loss to the copyright holder, identifying the user, send all this paperwork to all the public prosecutors around the country and have them prosecute people for $100-$200 loss to some company doesn't seem feasible.
I would guess that if you can get payouts from some small chunk of users, you can then use those funds to 'reinvest' in tracking down and catching more.
As soon as the process is sufficiently automated to be margin positive, you might as well scale it up to the whole population.
Your point is degraded when you use the term autistic as a stereotyped insult.
At risk of doing the same kind of generalization, I'd venture a lot of people of varying degrees of autism spectrum on these forums, would probably agree with you on your overall moral stand, if you didn't needlessly drag us into this.
Nope, this isn't pushed by the government, but legal circumstances here allow for cheap and automated detection and extortion of "offenders". I assume the right holder are making deals with big law firms specialized in the "Abmahnungs-Business", allowing them to track "offenders" on their behalf. Law firms then threaten to sue at courts sympathetic to rightholders, extort the "offenders" and give kickbacks to the rightholders.
I'm diagnosed autistic and I approve of this usage. I would be grateful if normies would refrain from getting offended on my behalf, I'm plenty offended enough by other things.
I 100% understand frustration of outsiders of a group being offended on some other groups behalf. I'm in a particularly progressive part of Canada so it happens a LOT! :=D
If it helps at all, I was talking on behalf of myself, not yourself. That being said, the term "normies" also irks me, so clearly our differences have nothing to do with our position on spectrum :->
(neither "offends" me, but as per above, I automatically take less seriously the user of such words)
I still get some use and entertainment out of Reddit by staying to more niche subreddits. They draw people who are a little more willing and able to curate the social environment--willing in that it can be an extension of the hobby or interest, able in that it's small enough to be feasible for people to do it. I don't think you could say the same about the big ones, their size might actually make it impossible for human curation.
To that end, my harebrained idea is to put a hard cap on the number of members a subreddit can have, and restrict posting and voting to those members. If people want, they can create <subreddit>2 and so on, each cluster self-regulating. To prevent squatting, you can only spawn a new one once the last one reaches a critical mass, and it has to be started by a member of the old one.
I just started medication for ADHD and it's helped a lot of things, so. There's that. I find that on top of being distracted less (not zero, it's not magic) I have more of a desire to do other stuff, like learn and read and play with my son and have good conversations with people I love. I find I'm more in control of my emotions, especially the critical ones, and my tendency to obsess and ruminate is reduced.
Based solely on this paragraph, you sound like me, so I'm going to take a shot and tell you what I'd tell my 24 year old self: no amount of browbeating yourself is going to fix this. Discipline takes work, yes, but it also takes a mind able to do the work. See a therapist, and/or a doctor. Lay all this stuff out and see what they say. After that, start small. But not just small--something you'd think you would enjoy. Don't force yourself to eat your vegetables at this stage. Something that lands in the middle of fun and enriching, which can produce a skill or a product you will eventually be proud of, but which in the meantime you like doing.
Take heart. This is doable. I've been there, it sucks, and there's a way out.
How long did it take for the meds to work? I have to different doses for a month each but did not see any effect, partly because i would sometimes not take the med on time.
This study is a breakdown of the demographics of offenders, not an account of the increase in incidents of rape, unless I'm missing something. The increase is a key point of the original post.
I swear I'm not being snarky here, but: isn't this supposed to be something the market can solve? Is there no eg furniture manufacturer looking at the state of things and resolving to make relatively affordable and durable furniture? I want durable shit. I want to buy stuff that's going to last. I know I'm not the only one. Is the only option for this to buy top dollar stuff? If you're buying crap every 2-10 years you may as well be renting, but with extra trash going into the landfill/on a boat to be burned and inhaled by children in a 3rd world dump.
I would also like to know what policy knobs to fiddle with that could change this situation, but I think the answer is probably something like "mumble mumble global finance capital".
Most people are not subject area experts in regards to infrequent purchases. From informal conversation it seems that a lot of consumers have experienced enshittification from brands and products that they previously held in high regard. This has resulted in them losing trust in the market and they now assume that anything they buy will be of poor quality regardless of other factors. As a result, they have given up on making purchasing decisions based on quality and now only purchase the cheapest product they can find.
This seems to have created a situation where consumers are unable to differentiate between different products based on quality and do not trust marketing because they've been lied to before.
Maybe, but about 40% of people who lean Democrat believe that "woman" refers only to biological sex. [1] This is not a MAGA thing. (I myself lean strongly Democratic.)
Among all Americans, 60% (and growing) believe that a transwoman is not a woman.
So, my core point stands: the transwoman Wikipedia article parrots an ideological minority.
This ideological group happens to be extremely online and fervent, as my downvote status reflects. But they are nevertheless a shrinking minority, per Pew Research, and their views have no place being espoused in a Wikipedia article. It's a shameful contravention of Wikipedia neutrality. [2]
If toxicity makes certain "volunteers" stop squatting on Wikipedia pages, then weaponized toxicity against them might actually be the prosocial choice, as Wikipedia is an important public resource. Drive them out. That's my takeaway from the parent article.
There's some lazy, parasitic, and axe-grinding writing in games journalism, as in all kinds of journalism. I am personally annoyed by how often I see Reddit posts and YouTube summarized like they're a story. But the good stuff is good, and this is IMO a good trend. Aftermath itself might suck, but I'd like to see more passionate video game writers get an opportunity to run their own outlet rather than churn out stupid bullshit about Twitter posts to create more surface for ads.
"We're trying something different, thanks for joining us"
A comma splice isn't the end of the world, but if this is the post that's advertising your new enterprise to the rest of the world, then it tells me you have some inexperienced writers.
That's an interesting observation - I'd have never noticed it in such a way. Reminds me "Nobody. Understands. Punctuation."[0] that's often reposted on hacker news.
I do not agree. It's readable, but not well written.
ex. "Fortnite saw 3.9 concurrent players on OG’s launch day, besting recent records, and huge subsequent numbers. It was the number one category on Twitch, bolstered by a 24-hour stream by Ninja, who made his name on the game."
It's more than privatization, although that's related. A service which began as a private one, like Google, but gets worse for the reasons Google has gotten worse, would be appropriately labeled enshittification, I think.
But it's a goofy term, and Doctorow is indeed annoying. Bird of a feather with this writer, whose style is also incredibly irritating. Nevertheless, good points worth making.
Edit, from TFA: "“This decrease results from a plurality of factors, such as the positive impact of the graduated response procedure, the transformation of practices regarding the consumption of cultural works on the internet, the acceleration of the dissemination of legal offers during the year, or even increasing use of workaround solutions (VPNs) by Internet users,” the regulator explains."