You’ll find that these professions have a vested interest in maintaining network effects, and as such will view Mast/Blue as threats to their networking infrastructure. They don’t want to dilute the importance of the platform their patronage systems rely on (let alone destroy it) - in fact its centrality is why they leverage it to advance their careers. Artists I can see understanding platform agnosticism to some extent, but for the other two groups, it’s simply not in their DNA. The gatekeeping is a feature for them.

‘The medium is the message’ as a Canadian theorist once said.

The domain is leased to SEO lizards https://larslofgren.com/forbes-marketplace/

Lots of banned artist and album names that will return zero results, unless you do something like search for a song or two that’s on the album you want and finding the data that way.

The only objectionable hurdles are the insurmountable ones

Last Christmas I gave a family member a flash drive containing ~10 high quality movie encodes, basically a shortlist of the year’s personal highlights I think they’d enjoy too. I don’t know if they’ve used it, but I’m going to make a habit of it until I hear otherwise. A drive for a handful movies is cheap enough to not worry about if it’s never seen again. Give them a large capacity drive however, or access to a Plex server, and paralysis of choice occurs.

Let us share products, offers and rewards you might like to help stores personalize your shopping.

This sentence is a masterpiece of omission.

Smear campaign

A smear campaign, also referred to as a smear tactic or simply a smear, is an effort to damage or call into question someone’s reputation, by propounding negative propaganda.[1] It makes use of discrediting tactics. It can be applied to individuals or groups. Common targets are public officials, politicians, political candidates, activists, and ex-spouses. The term also applies in other contexts, such as the workplace.[2] The term smear campaign became popular around 1936.[3] [Wikipedia[

Look everyone, it’s the season 37 opener of I’m not going to use the great tool because people I don’t like are also using the great tool!

Australia tried this in the early noughties I believe - running a non-public URL blacklist. After some parliamentary accountability and commmitees got it cracked open, they found that about 10% of the sites met the definition for inclusion, with the remainder being a grab-bag of things various politicians and bureaucrats didn’t like.

Private torrent content escapes naturally because it’s often shared on other P2P tools in use by the peers.

What makes you think Signal is maintaining relationship maps, and secondly, even if it is, is there any evidence they’re included in LEO subpoenas?

YT will likely attempt to play creators and viewers off one another. Similar to how hospitality does so with patrons and staff re: tips. You could see a FUD campaign aimed at anyone republishing their work on competitor sites.

deleted by creator

A good example of this scam that sticks out to me is plastics recycling. The marketed goal is a circular, sustainable^TM plastic economy. The real goals are uninterrupted plastics manufacturing and the maintenance of tax receipts from plastic goods consumption. Industry and government simply do not want less plastic in the world.

Is it really misuse if the mechanism was designed to be misused?

Characters like him are targeted because they are both successful and anti establishment

Not silly at all. It’s a ship of Theseus situation, and the ship has helmsmen with bad attitudes. Bad attitudes engender bad decisionmaking.

2035 2028: Browser content is piped to a local AI that filters junk and noise then feeds the result back into the browser for screen display

Parallelism 1, iterations 15, memory 512mb

New status unlocked! LUNATIC

I don’t understand when these companies are going to learn that sharing their IP is going to get them more money than being so fractured.

The risk equation makes sense. The potential gain from outlasting your competition and absorbing their subscriber bases to become a near-monopoly is higher than participating in a royalty scheme, and the downside is borne by shareholders and to a lesser extent creditors (the Other People’s Money principle).

https://files.catbox.moe/1laxu0.webm