This is the first comment I’ve found talking about a game I’ve played. Had a lot of fun playing cannon brawl it feels wrong to downvote your comment.

It’s an initiative to stop game companies (EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard etc) from being able to decide if you can play a video game that you’ve bought. The example used is for the video game “The Crew” which was an online-only racing game. After the servers were shutdown by Ubisoft, the game that many people bought became unplayable.

What StopKillingGames wants, is that any company that publishes / develop games provide a way for people who own the game to continue playing it indefinitely. This would most likely come in the form of a game server that could be run by any owner of the game, and shouldn’t be a requirement that publishers / developers run the servers forever as that would be unsustainable.

All ad supported services would need to move to a paid only model, locking out those who couldn’t afford to pay.

From Scotland and the family calls it “the runs”.

For SMS / texting

there’s a blanket

IIRC the French reactors are all nearing their end of service life and’ll be decommissioned soon.

What definition for piracy are your relying on?

The illegitimate procurement of media.

where did you source it?

My ass.

Does DMCA even have a definition for this?

Can’t help you there, I’m not American.

I’ve not argued any of those points. Just that not watching ads on YouTube is piracy.

In the UK, piracy isn’t a legally defined term, and the way that I would define piracy as the illegitimate procurement of media.

but TOS is often illegal anyway.

Piracy isn’t only a legal thing. It’s just dealt with through the legal system.

I’m not modifying any of the content

Sorry, I was wrong. You are however circumventing YouTube’s playing ads.

I’m a pedantic asshole.

You don’t have permission to modify any of the content YouTube sends you.

https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c

Section: Permissions and Restrictions Point 2

circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage, or otherwise interfere with the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that: (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content; or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

Piracy is sharing content that you don’t have the rights to share.

I’d classify watching something on piracysite.com as piracy.

I’d also class bypassing Netflix’s login requirements to watch their catalogue as piracy. But I guess that’s more a semantics thing.

Not saying you shouldn’t block ads, just questioning the OCs comment. If you don’t pay for the service monetarily or through data then imo it’s piracy.

Isn’t it? You’re not paying for a service / product.

IIRC some of the bigger banks / financial institutions use AI for fraud detections as well.

You keep saying waste, I would argue it’s a byproduct. Like whey from milk.

I’ve not seen any of these arguments. Though it may be all downvoted to hell and back.

My main gripe with adding privacy features to Lemmy is that the whole point of Lemmy is that all data is already publicly available and for Lemmy to continue working the way it does it’ll need to remain that way. And because of that there’s nothing that can be done to stop bad actors setting up an instance and selling all the data they collect.

At least in the EU (and UK to a lesser extent) no major corporation would be able to get away with selling that data, so the spent man hours on allowing privacy settings would be wasted time.

Because Anti-vaxxers don’t exist in other countries…

It’s more that people are distrustful of large organisations in general (governments, business, religion). There’s a rightful suspicion of faceless entities, and I don’t think that can be “fixed”.

deleted by creator