One reason for that might be that the users who do care and support(ed) the black-out are not back on Reddit. At least fewer of them than of the users that don't give a damn.
One reason for that might be that the users who do care and support(ed) the black-out are not back on Reddit. At least fewer of them than of the users that don't give a damn.
Clickable link: https://i.imgur.com/I7G25aL.png
@OP When you have continue session on, closing Firefox using burger menu->Quit restores all windows. I assume this will also keep the pins even without continue session.
use their ads-machine on fediverse
How would that part work?
Also, if they did join the fediverse, that would significantly reduce user lock-in to their site - which is why they won't.
But seriously, why not put a bag or box in your car, put the groceries from the shopping cart in there and then carry that bag from the car to your home?
No, I'm "scared", forgot? WooooOOOOOoooooh
Ah, so you're scared now? đź‘»
Oh, I know, I know, that's "trying to feign disinterest", right?
Tried and failed.
I'm only aware of care for specific bodily functions or behavior, none that is actually tied to sex.
But if he hadn't had cancer, both being killed and committing suicide would be random. So why would the randomness point to him being killed?
I'm not quoting anything. I'm saying the TOS say it's public information, not that they are giving up their copyright (which would be public domain).
You replied to a comment that said the reuploads are copyright infringement, calling it "Wrong", citing the TOS.
And in one of your other comments quoting the TOS, you explicitly say that they state the streams are in public domain (a copyright term), when the TOS actually say they are public information.
Some would say that livestreaming sex for strangers is immoral, and I’d also tell them to go fuck themselves.
Another thing we agree on. But you do realize that you telling them to go fuck themselves is based on a moral judgement as well?
And again, "[that's] how the internet works" does not make it right.
Also, a portion of that $200 billion likely directly or indirectly is US debt.
How would him being killed after 20 something years be any less random than him committing suicide?
glances at article
So? I never said I agreed with Gibson on this. I just stated legal considerations and my opinion on the matter. While it seems from your reply in the other thread that you're having a hard time with this, people other than you a capable of having original thoughts.
Don’t care.
Yeah, it's become very clear you don't care whether your replies actual have bearing on what you're replying to. Instead you keep making up stuff I didn't say and accuse me of things you continue to do yourself. It seems a lot like you prefer to live in your fantasy world where you're the strong free-thinking alpha male who has figured the world out, while I'm a "delicate cupcake", "whiny loser", "hyperventilat[ing]", part of the "finger-wagging morality police" who has no clue about politics (nevermind I never talked about the political implications of this at all).
In other words, you continue to not make any actual points, and this is getting boring.
Public information is not the same as public domain.
Yes, which is why arguing morality is literally the weakest argument you can put forward.
And yet you do it, too, because moral considerations are important. And I disagree about moral arguments being weak, btw. You can make strong moral arguments; and there is an entire branch of philosophy about it.
doesn’t make it an “invasion of privacy”.
Considering you were so vivid about me alledgly misquoting ealier, it is kind of remarkable that I did not say that.
But even if I did, 'it's not an invasion of privacy' is not a counter to 'it's not right, even if foreseeable' (paraphrasing here).
Clutch your pearls elsewhere.
You mean "comment on a discussion forum"? Because I certainly don't see me being emotional here.
Public information is not the same as public domain. They still hold the copyright on the streams, making reuploads illegal.
Also, aside from legality, it's simply morally wrong. They consented to be watched once live (or, if they enabled recordings, until they delete the VOD), not for it to be shared around on third party sites forever - regardless what Chaturbate put in their TOS to cover their asses.
Redistributing copyrighted material without permission is not only illegal when it's for profit. What you're alluding to is Fair Use (which does not require to be not-for-profit). And given the four factors of Fair Use, I think you're going to have a hard time arguing in court that uploading the full stream without adding anything constitutes Fair Use.
And I did not say it was not in public. But it was made public intended for one-time, live viewing; and not respecting that is immoral.
Nope, this feature has existed forever. They just changed the shortcut, previously it was Ctrl-shift-T for re-opening the last closed tab and Ctrl-shift-N for re-opening the last closed window.