Deadbert.

Oh no!

Anyways.

independent has always meant the freedom to create whatever you want without input unwanted influence from anyone else.

Yes, and if a publisher is present, you cannot as a consumer ensure this is the case. No publisher actually makes their contracts with dev studios public for review, or allows people to review their internal communication.

No, this distinction prevents publishers from co-opting “indie” as a label, which people support because of that artistic discretion, and hiding it behind their opaque promises of such independence that no one can verify. You cannot trust a dev hasn’t been influenced by a publisher when they’re present, so the only way to ensure that is to not have a publisher present.

I don’t know that movie, but I do know actual indie devs who use e.g. Patreon for funding. It’s not about not having money, it’s about who your money comes from, and whether there can be hidden stipulations on it. With publishers, there always are.

This is great to see, and as long as it’s up to companies whether to do this we need to encourage that behavior… but it also shouldn’t be up to companies’ whims whether to do this or not. It should be legally required for end-of-support devices and software to release whatever source code or changes are necessary to either operate the device/software independent of a server, or run the server ourselves.

Honestly, operating a private streaming site is much safer than pirate VHF/ UHF broadcasts, both in terms of what you’ll get charged with, and how long you’ll remain undetected. VHF and UHF broadcasts are literal homing beacons (and without something to bounce the signal off, very limited in what you’d reach).

Jellyfin on an offshore VPS, with invite-only accounts otoh…

If being depressed made people stop needing food

Show me where you think I said this.

I’ll assume you have no actual rebuttal than, shall I?

Art doesn’t help much if you’re starving to death.

And being well-fed doesn’t help much if you’re contemplating suicide because your life has no joy in it. And art is not the only source of joy, but it is one of them (and one of the most common).

You keep using the word “useful” in a way that suggests you’ve narrowly defined it in your head to exclude art. Life without art quickly results in a whole lot of death. Even the poorest humans throughout history have created music and art, because it’s a fundamental part of human life. Just because art is less critical to immediate survival in most cases than eating doesn’t make it any less necessary than it; shelter being more or less critical than food in a given situation (deadly sub-zero blizzard, more critical. Temperate area with no dangerous weather or predators, less critical) also doesn’t make it more or less necessary, it’s just a varying order of necessity. Being anti-Capitalist is important, but I feel like you’ve written off “professional” art as the domain of Capitalism rather than another victim of it (which food is as well, for that matter).

I mean… You can. You can train and run models yourself. Lots of people and orgs do.

something something WMDs in Iraq…

American == Fascistic == “Make America Great Again”/ Manifest Destiny == Settler Colonialist… viewpoints

Yes, and if there had been significant military resistance I think people would not be side-eyeing her so hard. Given how quickly they located and secured Maduro, however, and the extreme lack of military response to the attacks, it’s seeming pretty likely that Trump made a deal with her (as he’s claiming) to get Maduro.

immoral people existing is not the problem here

True. The profit motive is. People pushing harmful content are doing it because it makes them money, not because they’re twirling their moustaches as they relish their evil deeds. You remove the profit motive, you remove the motivation to harm people for profit.

the difference is that there isn’t an algorithm that acts as a vector for harmful bullshit

The algorithms boost engagement according to 1) what people engage with, and 2) what companies assess to be appealing. Facebook took the lead in having the social media platform own the engagement algorithms, but the companies and people pushing the content can and do also have their own algorithmic targeting. Just as Joe Camel existed before social media and still got to kids (and not just on TV), harmful actors will find and join discords. All that Facebook and Twitter did was handle the targeting for them, but it’s not like the targeting doesn’t exist without the platforms’ assistance.

Said bad actors do not exist in anywhere near the same capacity. Imo the harm of public chat rooms falls under the “parents can handle this” umbrella. Public rooms are still an issue, but from experience being a tween/teen on those platforms, it’s not even close to being as bad.

It wasn’t as bad on those… back when we were teens. It absolutely is now. If anything, you’ll usually find that a lot of the most harmful groups (red-pill/ manosphere, body-image- especially based around inducing EDs- influencers) actually operate their own discords that they steer/ capture kids into. They make contact elsewhere, then get them into a more insular space where they can be more extreme and forceful in pushing their products, out of public view.

If it was the case that it was just individual actors on the platform causing the harm and not the structure of the platforms incentivizing said harm, then we would see more of this type of thing in real life as well.

I’m not saying it’s all individuals, I’m saying the opposite; it’s companies. Just not social media companies. Social media companies are the convenient access vector for the companies actually selling and pushing the harmful products and corollary ideas that drive kids to them.

I struggle to think of a more complete solution to the harm caused by social media to children than just banning them.

Given that your immediate solution was to regulate kids instead of regulating companies, I don’t think you’re going to be interested in my solutions.

They won’t be once it’s just Trump (or his endorsed appointee) doing what Maduro did but as a puppet government. This isn’t the dismantling of a criminal racket, it’s just a takeover.

Naw, shoot him into the sun, please.

To be fair, if she actually ‘signed off’ on this, there’s no way she could admit that and remain in power. No matter what, we shouldn’t trust anyone that Trump endorses (and certainly, who he puts in power), no matter how much they protest his influence.

despite how harmful it is for society as a whole, and especially children

If you don’t understand that the motivation is to target kids with ads and influencer content designed to push products, you’re not going to solve anything. Kids have to have spaces to communicate with each other in order to develop healthy socialization skills. Locking them in a proverbial box is not healthy, and guess what, we killed off 99% of third spaces that welcome kids.

If social media is banned for under 16’s, then children would have to communicate with normal chat apps.

I feel like you are envisioning “chat apps” to mean “text-only”, but chat apps have been multimedia/ multi-modal, and multi-user (i.e. not 1:1 messaging) for a long time now, and can be just as easily infiltrated by the same actors targeting kids on social media.

at some point some systemic problems are better served by systemic solutions

This is not a solution, this is a band-aid that doesn’t attack the root cause whatsoever.

You can.

You just don’t want to either a) put in the legwork to do so, or b) be the ‘bad guy’ to your kids for doing it, so instead you just want the government to do it for you.

What’s stopping you from setting up pihole or configuring your home router to block social media sites at home, or turning on parental controls on their phones and blocking the sites and apps?