What's new

In today's news...


Lv1VillagerA

Lurker
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
1,370
Reputation score
3,082
Do they really think there's some magic box they can plug into the internet and have it resolve intellectual property disputes? Or is it that they think they can force people to install something on their personal computers? I really haven't read up on this as I should...
Politics are tech idiots but lobbyists are not. It's not hard to see who made the laws for copyright. They made them because they know it's starting to be possible to moderate the internet. They'll be satisfied if they can turn 80-99% of the users into obedient sheep.

Yes, you can solve intellectual property issues on the internet --although you can only resolve it from cultural products because the point of this protection is to block the majority of exchanges but not all.

This is thanks to Google/Youtube/Twitter/Facebook/etc. getting bigger and bigger coupled with AI moderators.
It's now very easy to delete posts on the main sites sites people use as well delete their search results when they want to go to smaller websites. -> You have solved the main issue.
Then, you need laws to go further and punish smaller websites. You must make it possible to slow down their bandwidth or directly ban them form DNS servers. -> You shrink the number of "bad" users further.
Once you have done most of the cleaning you have most specific solutions like monitored torrents/send fine with ISP (which would be inefficient as your main solution) or sending lawyers to take down websites Nintendo style.

I think lobbies know what they are doing.
 

Ninja_Named_Bob

Mystic Girl
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
720
Reputation score
360
Politics are tech idiots but lobbyists are not. It's not hard to see who made the laws for copyright. They made them because they know it's starting to be possible to moderate the internet. They'll be satisfied if they can turn 80-99% of the users into obedient sheep.
Lobbyists are just as dumb as politicians. You think every CEO and their lapdog is a Bill Gates? Hell, no. I would be surprised if they knew little more than the bare minimum about what their businesses do. As for moderating the internet, that's still a long ways off. There is no existing monitoring system that works so effectively that it can stop a hacker or a terrorist from coordinating their shit. Hell, ISIS uses twitter to recruit, in some cases. You really think it's getting easier to moderate it? If anything, the greedier fucks trying to run the show are just getting dumber and greedier by the day.

Yes, you can solve intellectual property issues on the internet --although you can only resolve it from cultural products because the point of this protection is to block the majority of exchanges but not all.
1,000 Doug Walker and TFS fans say "eat shit" to your intellectual property rights. Hell, your interpretation of "Fair Use" probably matches their own. Spoiler alert: "Fair Use" isn't a defense. You can't riff on a movie and monetize the video you do said riffing, then bitch when the copyright owner issues a take-down notice. The best you can do is ask youtube to overlook the violation.

This is thanks to Google/Youtube/Twitter/Facebook/etc. getting bigger and bigger coupled with AI moderators.
It's now very easy to delete posts on the main sites sites people use as well delete their search results when they want to go to smaller websites. -> You have solved the main issue.
Then, you need laws to go further and punish smaller websites. You must make it possible to slow down their bandwidth or directly ban them form DNS servers. -> You shrink the number of "bad" users further.
Once you have done most of the cleaning you have most specific solutions like monitored torrents/send fine with ISP (which would be inefficient as your main solution) or sending lawyers to take down websites Nintendo style.
AI isn't good at moderating. I've already established this in another thread (ironically, related to the forums as a whole) that, while AI technology has advanced and is a bit more reliable, it's still exploitable and could do with more improvement. My debate opponent disagreed on the basis of "eat shit" and promptly fucked off out of that thread.

A law being passed to outlaw free speech and the like on other sites which isn't blatantly objectionable and/or already illegal wouldn't go over well. I've already issued the obligatory "the end is nigh!" doom-speech, so I'll spare you the details. Suffice it to say, if you think this EU bill is some shenanigans, a law that effectively neutralizes smaller sites would see a pretty mean backlash. People like their porn. People like to express their retardation in a hug-box, too.

Bandwidth has as much to do with the user side as it does server-side. You attack the primary server, a smart site-owner will have alternatives, or a backup, or even a discord. You can't shrink the "bad" user population as easily as you're proposing. Oppression only works if the opposition has already submitted. Look at the recent shit-show with Infowars. That's still ongoing, and the various platforms are still taking shit for it. I doubt it will let up anytime soon, either. Also, Infowars is a small, almost irrelevant base. Imagine that multiplied by about 300 million. Or 600 million. You get the point.

Nobody sends a lawyer to your ISP. What happens when you pirate content is, if the rights owner catches wind of it, they issue a cease and desist to your ISP, specified to you. Your ISP will then decide if they want to humor the rights owner, or tell them to eat shit. Also, in this instance, ISP's are literally the only thing keeping Wicked Pictures or Disney from outright shit-stomping your ass into a mudhole every time you pirate something.

I think lobbies know what they are doing.
They know jack-shit about what they're doing. They're going by a 15-year-old FOX broadcast about 4chan in how they approach that cesspool. You think politicians are out of touch? Bruh, even EA's spokespersons are literal retards about their own content. A lobbyist is just the guy who communicates what the special interest groups want and campaigns fiercely to push it through. It works, too, because they're mostly empty-headed only good at being told how to use the toilet or harass a governor. The guys behind the scenes you need to be direct your frustration at are the greedy CEO's and other boardroom suits who aren't interested in your rights as long as nobody is knocking down their doors looking for blood.
 
Last edited:

Ninja_Named_Bob

Mystic Girl
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
720
Reputation score
360
Gas guns are cheaper than laser guns, and more effective




The two caveats with a railgun are:

1) they tear themselves apart with each shot, and

2) they require a ridiculous amount of energy to fire, to such a degree that no existing warship can produce the energy necessary. Yet.

A safer, cheaper weapon to slap someone's shit with from range? Yes, please!
 

Lv1VillagerA

Lurker
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
1,370
Reputation score
3,082
Never said I agreed with them. Just said they know they would get cash by enforcing copyright on the internet.
Also never said they would send lawyer to ISPs, only said they would forward fines thanks to the ISP collaboration (they already do that BTW).
AI moderation is shitty, you don't have to remind me of that, but it's already being used and it's so handy it unfortunately won't disappear.

As for stuff like infowars, that's irrelevant to the case. Twitter twats just banned him because they decided he hurt their image. He can continue elsewhere, they don't care at all. If Twitter karma whores decide one day that cat pictures are offensive, then cat lovers would be banned the same way. Really it's just about Twitter wanting to preserve their image. Replace Twitter with Youtube/Facebook if you want, it's still the same.

Again, in case that wasn't clear, I'm against what the lobbyists/CEOs are trying to do. I'm just saying they can moderate the internet to help whatever interest they may have (which is most likely not shared by the users).
 

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
RP Moderator
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
6,356
Reputation score
2,713
I do believe there is some misunderstanding about the actuality of censoring of websites. It's already happening. A bot can scan forum wording, count the instances of certain words, and mark a forum as 'Violent' 'Adult content' or, possibly in the future, copyright infringing. If it does, it might be your, Slicer's, misguided extolling of pirating that helps push things over the edge *chuckle*

Those marked websites are not deleted, or even reported.. you can just push them down in search priority. Make sure they aren't on any frontpages. That alone sounds harmless.. but it decreases the traffic to unwanted websites. Don't believe me? Try googling up 'Linemarvel' The first hit on ULMFG is not this forum, with vastly more activity.. it's the ULMF wiki, making it kind of ironic that the first sentence in the wiki is:
Welcome to The ULMF Wiki
The wiki about the Unofficial LineMarvel Forum that . since June 14th, 2009.

The Forum although, most likely you would have arrived here from the forum.
 

Hentaispider

Lord of the Tap Dance \oO.Oo/ (And Reputation Mana
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
11,998
Reputation score
430
I do believe there is some misunderstanding about the actuality of censoring of websites. It's already happening. A bot can scan forum wording, count the instances of certain words, and mark a forum as 'Violent' 'Adult content' or, possibly in the future, copyright infringing. If it does, it might be your, Slicer's, misguided extolling of pirating that helps push things over the edge *chuckle*

Those marked websites are not deleted, or even reported.. you can just push them down in search priority. Make sure they aren't on any frontpages. That alone sounds harmless.. but it decreases the traffic to unwanted websites. Don't believe me? Try googling up 'Linemarvel' The first hit on ULMFG is not this forum, with vastly more activity.. it's the ULMF wiki, making it kind of ironic that the first sentence in the wiki is:
The issue at hand isn't GOOGLE "censoring" websites(as a privately owned website, google is completely free to show or not show any content they please). It's STATES censoring websites.
 

Ninja_Named_Bob

Mystic Girl
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
720
Reputation score
360
I do believe there is some misunderstanding about the actuality of censoring of websites. It's already happening. A bot can scan forum wording, count the instances of certain words, and mark a forum as 'Violent' 'Adult content' or, possibly in the future, copyright infringing. If it does, it might be your, Slicer's, misguided extolling of pirating that helps push things over the edge *chuckle*
I mean, pornhub is still public knowledge. If you're trying to establish a narrative about how censorship is rampant af, you're technically right. The problem with your approach is, y'know, it's all-encompassing and disregards existing laws that prevents exactly that kind of censorship. It's like how you can go to a strip club or a casino, but a minor can't. The current debate that has been going on since day one is how to apply those same gates while also minimizing intervention as much as possible.

Those marked websites are not deleted, or even reported.. you can just push them down in search priority. Make sure they aren't on any frontpages. That alone sounds harmless.. but it decreases the traffic to unwanted websites. Don't believe me? Try googling up 'Linemarvel' The first hit on ULMFG is not this forum, with vastly more activity.. it's the ULMF wiki, making it kind of ironic that the first sentence in the wiki is:
I know you were trying to make a point about censorship by hyper-inflating something and spreading lies, but c'mon man.



The issue at hand isn't GOOGLE "censoring" websites(as a privately owned website, google is completely free to show or not show any content they please). It's STATES censoring websites.
Which hasn't happened outside the EU iirc. There is an effort by ISP's in the US to have the authority to dictate content, but it's failed so many times even Green Peace thinks they should stop trying.
 

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
RP Moderator
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
6,356
Reputation score
2,713
You must not have knowledge of these and related issues:

 
  • Like
Reactions: XSI

XSI

Lurker
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
2,521
Reputation score
423
The issue at hand isn't GOOGLE "censoring" websites(as a privately owned website, google is completely free to show or not show any content they please). It's STATES censoring websites.
While technically correct, this is basically "It's okay as long as it's a private company deciding what I get to see, and not government"
Despite any big company in the west basically having politicians on their payroll. But that's okay, it's not technically bribery, it's 'lobbying' and 'donations', and 'a hearty chat between like-minded individuals'

Censorship is still censorship if it's got a corporate logo on it
 

Cyriel

Lurker
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
196
Reputation score
86
In the spirit of dumb shit by dumb people,


Article 13.
The short version: It's like youtube copyright claiming your videos, but for everything on the internet. Yes, Everything. They are that fucking retarded to come up with this.
It hasn't passed yet, hopefully never will, but it was thought up by someone, pushed towards the governing body of an entire continent and if it should by some fucking miracle pass, we as a species need to re-evaluate our entire governing societal structure.

Seriously, what the fuck.
 

MrMe

Lurker
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
1,835
Reputation score
352
I do believe there is some misunderstanding about the actuality of censoring of websites. It's already happening. A bot can scan forum wording, count the instances of certain words, and mark a forum as 'Violent' 'Adult content' or, possibly in the future, copyright infringing. If it does, it might be your, Slicer's, misguided extolling of pirating that helps push things over the edge *chuckle*

Those marked websites are not deleted, or even reported.. you can just push them down in search priority. Make sure they aren't on any frontpages. That alone sounds harmless.. but it decreases the traffic to unwanted websites. Don't believe me? Try googling up 'Linemarvel' The first hit on ULMFG is not this forum, with vastly more activity.. it's the ULMF wiki, making it kind of ironic that the first sentence in the wiki is:
Actually there's a very good reason, view the page source and search for 'linemarvel' and you'll see few, if any, references to linemarvel.
ULMF on the other hand is in the title of every page, and this is the tag search engines look at the most, so searching google for ULMF shows this as top.
 

Lv1VillagerA

Lurker
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
1,370
Reputation score
3,082
You're right.

Pervy example may be wrong but he still stated the issue: Google do tweak search results.

This used to be for the benefit of the user, like pulling up relevant information (type 'meteo' and see for yourself) and protecting him from harm (type 'i want to kill myself' and see for yourself).
It can easily be changed to completely mess up with the user (with sponsored links type 'why' or 'what the hell' and see for yourself, or DMCA'd links type 'anime sharing' and see for yourself).
For now, they do it 'innocently'--for benefit--but with new laws they (can and they) will step up their game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XSI

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
RP Moderator
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
6,356
Reputation score
2,713
Actually there's a very good reason, view the page source and search for 'linemarvel' and you'll see few, if any, references to linemarvel.
ULMF on the other hand is in the title of every page, and this is the tag search engines look at the most, so searching google for ULMF shows this as top.
Yeah I might have rushed for an example, my bad.
But as an alternate example of how things -could- be I present Shadow of War lets players, who quickly learned to remove the 'War' bit out of the title of their videos because the search algorithm made sure those got less exposure. Because war is bad!11! An equivalent to that would be the worst case we're looking at.
 

Ninja_Named_Bob

Mystic Girl
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
720
Reputation score
360
In the spirit of dumb shit by dumb people,


Article 13.
The short version: It's like youtube copyright claiming your videos, but for everything on the internet. Yes, Everything. They are that fucking retarded to come up with this.
It hasn't passed yet, hopefully never will, but it was thought up by someone, pushed towards the governing body of an entire continent and if it should by some fucking miracle pass, we as a species need to re-evaluate our entire governing societal structure.

Seriously, what the fuck.
Egregious misrepresentation on your part. I can't moderate your speech, but please don't go spreading blatantly false propaganda.

First and foremost, Article 13:

While it's still up in the air, the law puts the onus on the different platforms to enforce copyright, rather than expecting the rights owners to take a day to make sure their content isn't being misused or stolen. While this does come off as giving Youtube and Google too much power, it's also a way for rights owners to have their content protected without needing to spend days on the internet, looking for even the slightest infringement. Also, it's non-applicable to sites based outside the EU, so either they enforce their own content ban a la North Korea, or they shrug and move on with their lives. The concern over a "meme ban" is due to some memes containing copyrighted material (characters and such). It's arguable what might come from it, but saying it's the fourth reich is over-reaching.

And your blatant fear-mongering doesn't help things. If anything, it further legitimizes the law.

Yeah I might have rushed for an example, my bad.
But as an alternate example of how things -could- be I present Shadow of War lets players, who quickly learned to remove the 'War' bit out of the title of their videos because the search algorithm made sure those got less exposure. Because war is bad!11! An equivalent to that would be the worst case we're looking at.
Getting real tired of your attempts to fear-monger and exaggerate bullshit to push a false narrative. If you're really committed to preventing copyright abuses by lawmakers, I would suggest studying law and committing to finding actual instances and presenting them to congress and the eu as evidence so they are forced to reconsider the things that apparently terrify you.


Moving on from fear-mongering...



Now, someone go get William Shatner and DeForest Kell-oh...

At least we still have Shatner, right?
 

MrMe

Lurker
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
1,835
Reputation score
352
They could dig up Leonard Nimoy and do a "Weekend at Spock's"
 

Turrican

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
155
Reputation score
15
Egregious misrepresentation on your part. I can't moderate your speech, but please don't go spreading blatantly false propaganda.

First and foremost, Article 13:

While it's still up in the air, the law puts the onus on the different platforms to enforce copyright, rather than expecting the rights owners to take a day to make sure their content isn't being misused or stolen. While this does come off as giving Youtube and Google too much power, it's also a way for rights owners to have their content protected without needing to spend days on the internet, looking for even the slightest infringement. Also, it's non-applicable to sites based outside the EU, so either they enforce their own content ban a la North Korea, or they shrug and move on with their lives. The concern over a "meme ban" is due to some memes containing copyrighted material (characters and such). It's arguable what might come from it, but saying it's the fourth reich is over-reaching.

And your blatant fear-mongering doesn't help things. If anything, it further legitimizes the law.



Getting real tired of your attempts to fear-monger and exaggerate bullshit to push a false narrative. If you're really committed to preventing copyright abuses by lawmakers, I would suggest studying law and committing to finding actual instances and presenting them to congress and the eu as evidence so they are forced to reconsider the things that apparently terrify you.


Moving on from fear-mongering...



Now, someone go get William Shatner and DeForest Kell-oh...

At least we still have Shatner, right?
Excuse were you talking about me? I did not say anything this time.
 

XSI

Lurker
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
2,521
Reputation score
423
News, anyone?


US College Mascot Accidentally Obliterates Own Dick With A T-Shirt Gun
 

super_slicer

Lord High Inquisitor
Staff member
H-Section Moderator
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
12,531
Reputation score
30,578
Such clickbait, there's no amount of compressed air that can turn cloth into a projectile that causes real damage. Simply put: cloth is too good at absorbing energy for it to have enough to cause lasting damage upon impact with anything other that the most sensitive tissue (yes your genitals have a lot of nerves it them but it's the same flesh that's on the rest of your limbs unlike, say, your eyes) at any range given the limitations of compressed air as a propellant.

I'm not even sure you could turn a shirt into a projectile worthy of the name with any means, as at some velocity friction within the chamber would cause enough heat to atomize cloth.
 

Ninja_Named_Bob

Mystic Girl
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
720
Reputation score
360
Such clickbait, there's no amount of compressed air that can turn cloth into a projectile that causes real damage. Simply put: cloth is too good at absorbing energy for it to have enough to cause lasting damage upon impact with anything other that the most sensitive tissue (yes your genitals have a lot of nerves it them but it's the same flesh that's on the rest of your limbs unlike, say, your eyes) at any range given the limitations of compressed air as a propellant.

I'm not even sure you could turn a shirt into a projectile worthy of the name with any means, as at some velocity friction within the chamber would cause enough heat to atomize cloth.
Do you not know how physics works? Or how thin that skin of your scrotum is? Also, your limbs have the benefit of muscle, sinew, and bones to absorb a majority of the energy from an impact. Your crotch isn't as well-protected, bud. Something like that rope scene from Casino Royale could cause your scrotum to explode on the first swing, and that's not even going into the mutilation it might do to your shaft. We're not even gonna go into how a condensed mass-no matter how soft its un-condensed state is-gains density the more you condense it. And t-shirt guns are considered a class-B firearm, so I'm gonna assume it produces enough force on discharge to do some damage if you're standing too close.

But, yeah, it's probably fake news. You're still a dumbass, though.
 
Top