ViViDboarder

I'm not seeing how that doesn't help support DRM?

It does nothing to dissuade content gatekeepers from employing restrictive DRM on their sites.

Anti-DRM would be avoiding anything that gives money to those that employ DRM to incentivize the removal of the DRM. Frankly, flat out piracy (streaming ripped content) is more likely to result in the removal of DRM than making it appear that the DRM is working well for the provider.

Regarding point 1, recent judicial decisions on scraping seemed to have entrenched it as legal.

On two, it seems like they are concerned with trademark to me. A workaround could be making a website that parses and displays Twitter content and call it something else. Then, in an app, make no mention of Twitter and only the website.

That’s because San Francisco is expensive. A sandwich with no sides at many places downtown is more than $10 and I’m pretty sure it’s not organized shoplifting…

Until the plastic results in loss of sales because people don’t want to bother, we probably won’t see it reversed. The cost is sunk. Why wouldn’t they leave it, even if ineffective, as long as it doesn’t cost them anything?

Theres that kind of growth, and then the expectation that you grow into every conceivable vertical to expand more rapidly or support stock prices for an otherwise stagnant business.

Years ago someone reported this about GitHub projects as well. If I recall correctly, working as intended was the response.

Yea. That’s the part that is ripped. Making a new photo sharing app shouldn’t be controversial.

I like Pixelfed, but it was naive to rip the filter names and think that was somehow ok. It was also a totally unnecessary thing to copy. An imitation filter could be called anything and people will be able to tell (assuming you did a good enough job imitating).

Yea. And you’re not “on the internet”. It’s a series of nodes that talk with each other and route requests between them. /s

There is no strict technical definition of “on” in this case.

No commuters? What city are you referring to? In SF, Muni is packed along my commute to the city. Probably there’s not as much commuting, but there’s certainly quite a bit.

Also, more dense housing actually usually means less commuting. That’s one of the reasons I generally support it. People living closer to work means less commute time resulting in less carbon as well.

As far as I can tell, the people against market rate housing are really just using low-income housing as justification of their NIMBYism.

Kind of like how domestic espionage is justified with calls of “think of the children”. They try to make you seem heartless to oppose their position.

I think l the reason is that it means that they don’t trust or don’t want their users to know what they are doing on your machine. To me, that is already a malicious premise. Even if they aren’t trying to exfiltrate my data or anything.

Fraud is already criminal.

Exactly. Big pint media companies like those you mentioned and New Yorker put out plenty of articles in spite of legal threats. They have legal teams that can tell them if the threats are founded or not and generally have a good track record of defending their positions.

What someone other than these media groups may do is make a “bold claim” that may be true but not demonstrably so. Something like that may shy a big company away from casting the first stone and instead to report on someone else’s claim as an allegation.

It doesn’t look like you disagree to me. The result of such taxes or regulations is less and more expensive consumption.

Yea, the OP said federal legislators should do something. The constitution provides them a legal framework for writing laws.