A mild copyright violation based on a system designed around the constant distribution of copies of things is NOT a parable about sexual violence, people.

I feel like this extremely insensitive rape take is the fediverse’s version of the Godwin Law.

Why bother with that? If you need shoes to dissolve, regardless of the materials, just subject them to my foot sweat for a few months.

It still failed to hit projected box office returns with that factored in!

It’s just funny because it’s a good movie and the first one won an academy award but is terrible.

And they won it for writing “damaged” on Joker’s forehead… at least in part.

Fun fact, The Suicide Squad (2021) was a box office flop, whereas Suicide Squad (2016), the only academy award winning DCEU film, was a box office smash hit!

The fediverse has a built-in search engine?

I can only comment on my experience searching for communities in lemmy and people to follow on mastadon, but in both cases I am not sure I’d say “works quite well” would describe my experience.

But also that’s not what I think OP was talking about.

They want a search engine for a random fact like google. It’s been long true that you need to add “reddit” to the end of any google search to find the info you needed.

It’d be nice to have a fediverse alternative.

The link seemed to work for me from lemmy. I see three posts there when I click it at least.

Those well-meaning-but-terrible-in-practice consumer protection laws are probably a good indicator of why the EU isn’t a hub of technological innovation.

They’re at least a symptom of the same underlying outlook on the industry.

Very true. Though I would click that bait so hard!

I still prefer this type of article to lots of others in the bait family. Obviously they want people sharing this article and saying “See! That thing I believe is proven!”

It’s a nicer engagement-driving piece of content.

While Helldivers 2 and Baldur’s Gate 3 might look like sudden jackpot successes

This article is funny. It’s like the feel-good inverse of a rage-bait article. It’s stating what we all want to be true and cherry-picking two games that only sort of provide evidence towards it, and only if you squint really hard.

Both games are sequels backed by huge publishers with tons of cash.

BG3 is a Dungeons and Dragons franchise title; a franchise which recently received a massively successful film, a huge boost in popularity during a pandemic, and a boost in cultural relevance in Strange Things.

Helldivers 2 fits the claim a bit better, but it is still a sequel to a well received, well selling title. The extraction shooter genre is also exceedingly popular right now, and the fact that it has Games as a Service bullshit built in says that publishers weren’t as hands-off as the article implies.

So the more realistic take-away from this is that good games with huge budgets for development AND marketing in reasonably popular genres can make a ton of money.

Which isn’t saying much. And it certainly doesn’t look like a sudden jackpot.

I don’t know the answer but they pointed this out further in the press release:

However, it’s also important for us that Mastodon is one of the few, if not the only social media platform that operates out of the EU, and we would like to keep it that way.

I’d assume that this is for a reason, too. If it were advantageous to run your company out of the EU people would probably do so sometimes.

It’s not the reviewer’s fault! When they asked ChatGPT to peer review the paper it found nothing wrong.

You are describing the current situation in the fediverse, not a problem caused by the idea proposed.

Allowing for federated identity would also imply allowing migration of identity, which wholly prevents what you just described.

The current system is guaranteed to have larger instances where people won’t want to leave because doing so abandons your identity.

If I could move around the fediverse freely I would do so, but that is not a feature that is supported so I stick to the largest instance which happens to be the one I chose. I am not unique in this. Obviously, or this instance wouldn’t be so large.

Offering federated identity is only a better situation than today.

Imagine if login was a federated feature in lemmy.

What this would mean is that I could go to lemmy.ml and login using my lemmy.world account credentials and people from lemmy.ml could go to lemmy.world and log in using theirs.

Neither could go to beehaw and login because it does not federate with the two of them.

In this world I could create an identity on lemmy.world and a separate identity on lemmy.ml if I wanted to.

Now imagine if I could login with my lemmy.world account on a non lemmy platform that lemmy.world federates with.

There’s nothing centralized about this, and it is exactly in the spirit of everything else in the fediverse. To login on beehaw I would have to create an identity on beehaw or someone they federate with.

What you seem to be against is forcing you to have only one login. That does go against the model we are talking about.

And it isn’t what’s being suggested.

Nothing about this idea implies centralization. There is no reason identity has to be tied to the platform using the identity and no reason why there needs to be a central identity store.

In fact, right now my identity IS centralized to lemmy.world and I have no control over that.

Your solution to create as many identities as you want is great for avoiding having one identity, but not an example of decentralized identity.

I would like to be able to have multiple, decentralized, identities.

This proposal doesn’t solve any of the issues in your second paragraph, and I wholly agree with you that those should be solved. Those would be much easier to regulate, as truth in advertising is kind of important.

The first paragraph probably feels good to think about, but right now, you don’t have any right to any of that. Perhaps start there if it’s important to you to change things?

It feels like developing the problem space through examples and situations would be better than trying to think of preferred solutions and working backwards.

It might also be a decent exercise for someone to go through this separately from a consumer protections policy perspective vs a culture preservation perspective, which you mention.

For instance, if the law only applied to corporations that continue to exist past the end of the product, that would be a reasonable consumer protection, but would miss most games that disappear to time from a preservation perspective.

And if preservation is the issue you want to solve, then is this the highest priority in gaming? Maybe this could be solved through a non-profit funding the transitions of server code to the hands of the consumers, or through reverse engineering efforts to rebuild servers for games that have shuttered.

But yeah, it would be nice for this problem to go away, I just hope that attempts at regulating it don’t have bad unintended consequences.

I have literally worked at a game company startup that ran out of money and shut down abruptly.

And have you not been paying attention to the news lately? Game companies are shutting down weekly.

So those things are added risks and costs that will have to be factored into deciding which games to fund and which to not.

So it will reduce the number of multiplayer games that get made.

I am a single player gamer so I selfishly am Ok with that, but less Ok with it being handled in a way that could have other unintended consequences.

As an aside, I don’t know how these petitions work, but would it be helpful to give concrete examples of software that has had this happen and what your perceived solution to it could be?

• relase the server software to allow players host them themselves
• patch the game to not require company’s server (even if not all features would be functional)
• allow people to create their own servers after official ones are dead (think private MMO servers)

Your petition doesn’t allow for the second option (exactly how much functionality is allowed to be missing?), fyi, but let’s ignore it for the moment.

Let’s take a not uncommon case that causes games to shutdown: a company that ran out of money.

How do you do any of these things legally without paying your now jobless employees?

You need to either release the servers at the same time as the game, which has cost associated with it, or you need to hold funds up front to handle paying for the costs on the backend (i.e you need to pay an insurance premium).

This petition is worded in such a way that it almost feels like lying.

Most games that shut down aren’t doing so because they had an arbitrary ping home that breaks them, it’s because hosting servers is fundamentally part of the game’s multiplayer-oriented experience.

You’re trying to use the former to backdoor in a way to force the latter to give you all of its server code.

Assuming this law were to go forward with even the most rigorous knowledge of the problem-space, and an intentional push to require multiplayer or server-based games to give you their server code after the game is shut down, all that will do is increase the risk involved in creating any multiplayer games.

Most likely this will reduce the quality and variety of games that get created going forward, which would ironically make preservation much easier.