Gaming shut downs.

  • Thread starter TRLWNC7396
  • 72 comments
  • 3,396 views
It's true that society can run even if some of the gears are grinding, though I still find it concerning if people openly ask for more bias to fix existing biases. Protecting something is better than protecting nothing, but ambivalence to the preservation of rights of other people isn't really conductive to the former. And if we're going to allow that the people with the backing of money and the ability to closely coordinate with others of similar mind are probably going to excel at manipulating the system.
It's not so much ambivalence as resigned realism. I think all rights should be protected equally, but I can recognise that's not the world that we live in and I'm not prepared to throw up my hands and say "**** it" just because we're not in a utopia.

You do the best you can with what you have. We should protect rights as much as possible, but even knowing that we can't fully protect them doesn't make them pointless.

As far as more bias to fix existing biases, sometimes that's the best solution. Sometimes a broken leg is set wrong, and the only way to truly fix it is to break the leg and reset it again properly. But we're working against a cultural system that measures the value of everything almost entirely in financial terms, there's little consideration for the artistic impact or enjoyment of a piece of media or the legacy of being associated with it's creation beyond the financial. Until that changes people are naturally going to try their hardest to game every last red cent out of whatever laws you put in place without regard to any greater benefits that might be possible.

That's going to suck regardless of whether you legislate around it or not. But again, all you can do is try your best to minimise harm and maximise the benefits.
Ideas can't be owned, but if someone is in possession of an idea they can set the terms under which they will share it. If they want to offer that idea for something in return the terms can be negotiated. This is essentially what's being attempted by creating consumer protection laws, but that still doesn't justify dictating what a corporation (in this case) can or can't do when it comes to business. I think the goal should be to find a set of mutually agreeable terms.
I agree. And that's an argument around economics and trade and what makes a stable and equitable society. I think that's a much stronger basis for discussing how these things should and shouldn't work than rights, and avoids having to deal with the whole concept of an unspoken and nebulous social contract.
 
It's not so much ambivalence as resigned realism. I think all rights should be protected equally, but I can recognise that's not the world that we live in and I'm not prepared to throw up my hands and say "**** it" just because we're not in a utopia.

You do the best you can with what you have. We should protect rights as much as possible, but even knowing that we can't fully protect them doesn't make them pointless.
I agree that we shouldn't be throwing up our hands just because the world isn't ideal. The comment that I originally replied to reads as a case of ambivalence toward a specific group. If that wasn't the intent of @Tornado 's comment, then fine, but according to what was typed out I think my reply was valid.
As far as more bias to fix existing biases, sometimes that's the best solution. Sometimes a broken leg is set wrong, and the only way to truly fix it is to break the leg and reset it again properly. But we're working against a cultural system that measures the value of everything almost entirely in financial terms, there's little consideration for the artistic impact or enjoyment of a piece of media or the legacy of being associated with it's creation beyond the financial. Until that changes people are naturally going to try their hardest to game every last red cent out of whatever laws you put in place without regard to any greater benefits that might be possible.

That's going to suck regardless of whether you legislate around it or not. But again, all you can do is try your best to minimise harm and maximise the benefits.
I also think that the focus on profit is inflated in many cases and while I think it's fine and even good to advocate that people expand their list of priorities, I want to stay away from making a judgement on where society should be as a whole. The idea of doing the best with what you have is one that I've thought applies well here. If the majority only see things in terms of money then you can work within that system to acquire money and use it to further your own goals, like the creation of art for its artistic merit. I know that's boiling it down to the simplest elements and that there are obstacles to overcome but the basic idea is a solid one.

You're absolutely right that people's motivations will heavily influence how things work regardless of laws as laws can only work so far as they are enforced. People have to be willing to support their values in order to see those values maintained. Laws can help, but they can never be a complete solution in and of themselves.

I feel like I might be rambling a bit and I'm not sure if I explained myself well in the preceding two paragraphs partly because I agree with a lot of what you said. I'm not totally sold on fighting bias with bias. In terms of bringing change I think it can work absolutely. However I fear that it can go over the line where one point of view is treated as superior to another when that shouldn't be the case.
I agree. And that's an argument around economics and trade and what makes a stable and equitable society. I think that's a much stronger basis for discussing how these things should and shouldn't work than rights, and avoids having to deal with the whole concept of an unspoken and nebulous social contract.
My goal wasn't to use rights as a solution to the problem, it was an attempt to steer the discussion toward a resolution that was consistent with the rights all of groups involved. In a sense rights would be a filter. You won't find an answer to the problem by considering rights alone, but you can use rights to discard ideas that are biased one way or another. There are more than rights involved in this discussion and a successful resolution needs to consider more than just rights. At the same time, rights should be respected by any solution proposed. I think we have the same mind on that.
 
Unrelated to the thread but relevant to my first post.

The commodification of everything in life is one thing but e v e r y t h i n g "as a service" or subscription-based or "smart engineered" is really, really frustrating. It turns a nice existence with fun indulgences into life actually becoming bloatware.
FB_IMG_1713297412682.jpg
 
Last edited:
Unrelated to the thread but relevant to my first post.


View attachment 1347229
And having to create an account/provide your personal details for seemingly everything, stored on servers all over the place, with no real standards for securing data.

We've had multiple high-profile data breaches in Australia (with literally millions of people affected), and to my knowledge, there haven't been any penalties dished out.

But that's a topic for another discussion.
 
And having to create an account/provide your personal details for seemingly everything, stored on servers all over the place, with no real standards for securing data.
Requiring accounts, or worse a phone, can be anywhere from annoying to infuriating. In the few years that I've had a smart phone I've used exactly one app ever only because I didn't know it was required for a product that I bought. I deleted it the instant that I was done with it. Even if it wasn't trying to collect data, which I'm sure it was, the process is so pointless and annoying that I resist it as much as possible.
 
I remember a cartoon that we had on our fridge for years. My brother-in-law (who is a lawyer) saw it and did a slow nod.

It was a "non-sequiter" comic, and said, "What's wrong plus what's legal equals what's right".

I think the "legal" part of this is going too far. Because it isn't morally right any more. It's theft.
 
Another interesting take on this:

And this is a better explanation of what we are dealing with:

Could you give a short summary of why this combined 34 minutes of video is relevant and worth watching, rather than just "interesting take" and "better explanation"? Giving people homework and just linking to other people's opinions isn't exactly how a discussion works.
 
Could you give a short summary of why this combined 34 minutes of video is relevant and worth watching, rather than just "interesting take" and "better explanation"? Giving people homework and just linking to other people's opinions isn't exactly how a discussion works.
Just more proofs of monopolies.
 

Latest Posts

Back