Until they put 100%+ tariffs on them making it more expensive than the existing industry because it would cost too much for them to compete.
Just look at why the US can’t get chinese EVs and how mich lower performance and higher prices we have.
So much for a “free market.” Not in my monopolies!
Make the software foss too and i’m in
Let’s also throw in some civics and ethics and how to spot misinformation.
It’s dominant because of…consumer choice? Isn’t that supposed to be a good thing?
Why is it a monopoly? Epic, Xbox, Amazon, and more exist…they just don’t follow the steam template nor invest in their platform as much as steam does. 🤷♂️ how is Valve acting in an anti-competitive way?
Another user said similar, so:
Just to clarify I wasn’t trying to insinuate anything of Rossman’s political stance. I was just using it as an example to describe the more aggressive nature towards protecting people over corporations. Which is often a leftist stance but doesn’t mean you’re necessarily a leftist.
And yeah, I’m also not a fan of FUTO’s, their strategy for licensing for example, I looked into Grayjay and ultimately went to Newpipe. While better than entirely closed source, it still centralizes control so 🤷♂️
But I entirely agree, he’s definitely more towards the center. However, right to repair and his fight against corporations are obviously worth supporting.
Just to clarify I wasn’t trying to insinuate anything of Rossman’s political stance. I was just using it as an example to describe the more aggressive nature towards protecting people over corporations. Which is often a leftist stance but doesn’t mean you’re necessarily a leftist.
It’s a solution in search of a problem.
And it’s a bunch of misanthropic sociopaths with main character syndrome who read scifi novels and saw the warnings as a guideline because “I’m the super smartest, I can implement it correctly, and I have to be first, because those other guys won’t do it correctly”
Same way you use the phrase “no offense” right? Lol
Visa and Mastercard are the reason steam removed a bunch of adult games and itch.io removed all adult games.
Because a payment processor is a moral arbiter for what you spend your money on.
I believe a bit of that we’re seeing is being self-titled as “dark woke” lol. I’d count myself among them. Where, instead of trying to hold decorum and be super duper respectful, if you see or hear someone doing something immoral, you call that shit out and you do it hard. Modern day “punch a Nazi” and not accrue assault charges essentially.
Not to turn it entirely political, but I see it as the next step based on how politics have evolved. Conservatives would often do and say terrible things themselves, but then they’d tell liberals/centrists “but where’s the tolerant left, where’s you’re decorum, how could you do these terrible things” etc etc and it would work fairly well where establishment dems would shrink back in their holes or they’d “work across the aisle” and produce half measures that barely helped the public, if at all, rather than standing on principle.
Now, I think you’re seeing a lot more, especially leftists, essentially say fuck that and push back and go on the offensive to knock them down a peg. And given that most conservative talking points are all bluster, they have no real principle or ideology, it falls flat with a more aggressive stance backed up by facts and principle.
Louis gives off that to me, as many leftists are grounded in principle to do what is right for people and humanity. He’s saying, look, Samsung, you’re a piece of shit and I know you’re a piece of shit to others, and I know that you know others won’t be able to push back against you, you’re taking advantage of them. So fuck you, I’ll stand up for both myself and all the others you’ve been harming. Let’s fucking go.
People are tired. And we know what is right. And we’re tired of being gaslit and taken advantage of.
An example of what I’m kind of talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZzZCo_JKO4
One just dropped on the coffeezilla main channel. Added.
It honestly feels like they’re a corporate plant with how they’re in a bunch of these comments.
Fair point, and I’ll concede, but only partially, as it is nit what is being discussed here. Starmer’s proposal isn’t asking for Apple to expand their system, it’s mandating platforms to comply and make it impossible, and the platforms can choose how to do so. On-device detection that never leaves the device is a meaningfully different privacy profile than server-side scanning or breaking E2E encryption. Apple’s Communication Safety feature works roughly as you described and that architecture is less invasive than the worst case scenario. If every implementation were genuinely on-device, opt-in, parent-controlled, and open source verifiable, it would be a different conversation.
But that’s where my concession stops.
We can only take a corporation’s word that it’s truly on-device and nothing is retained. The history of that promise is not encouraging. There have been multiple instances across the industry of companies guaranteeing on-device processing only for that data to appear in breach disclosures afterward. Closed, proprietary systems cannot be independently verified. We’re being asked to trust the architecture of companies whose entire business model is built on data extraction.
There’s also a false positive problem. Google has already implemented similar detection and there are confirmed cases of users having their entire Google accounts permanently locked after photographing their own child in the bath. Emails, photos, Drive, business files, income streams, all gone, with no meaningful appeals process. The harm from a false positive in a system like this isn’t a minor inconvenience, it’s potentially catastrophic and irreversible.
And then there’s the infrastructure problem. The Patriot Act is, once again, the prime example. You build the architecture for one stated purpose and then it gets legislated into something broader. Age verification is the live example happening right now. It started as self-attestation. That wasn’t sufficient so it became on-device ID verification. That wasn’t sufficient so it became third party trusted providers. Private vendors like Persona and kID. Both of which have had documented breaches after promising on-device verification themselves. This is literally the documented trajectory of every surveillance infrastructure built in the name of protection.
It’s never a matter of if they legislate it further. It’s when. And who profits from the expanded version.
The contract question has been answered. The Gormans publicly released their franchise agreement which explicitly states “the franchisee may also offer consignment services” directly contradicting BAM CEO Ammon McNeff’s claim that consignment was unauthorized under franchise rules. The CEO lied on camera and the document proves it.
On the security footage: on the night BAM seized the store, Ki McAllister, BAM’s Director of Operations, was on speakerphone when the Gormans informed him of the outstanding consignment. He acknowledged it and stated that since the new operator was taking over the business, he would be taking over the consignment as well. That exchange was captured on the store’s security camera and has been provided to law enforcement. BAM’s subsequent claim of ignorance about the collection is directly contradicted by their own Director of Operations on recorded footage. Several reviews by attorney’s above agree that that it is reasonable to believe there was knowledge of said consignment before the takeover.
The Gormans also have audio of McAllister saying “if we go the legal route it’s going to be a very expensive battle for you” which is the corporation explicitly threatening legal attrition against people trying to recover property that was taken from them.
BAM’s “reasonable cooperation” also included attempting to take down Ben’s Patreon to cut off his legal funding, getting his GoFundMe removed, and filing a RICO lawsuit against him, the Mansell family, and associates. Patreon’s own CEO called their takedown attempt a “despicable maneuver” and refused to comply, outright telling BAM to sue Patreon.
This isn’t bad record keeping. This is a documented corporate coverup with security footage, released contracts, recorded phone calls, and a paper trail of legal intimidation tactics. The only reason any of this is moving toward resolution is because of public pressure. Which is exactly why spreading it matters.
Here’s a link to all the documents made public so far, including the Gorman’s signed franchise agreement, BAMs old and new franchise agreements, Mansell’s signed consignment agreement, and more.
You really sound like a corporate plant dude. “And anyone with a bunch of legos is obviously well off.” 1 - no? How is that even a statement? 2 - and how does that make it ok to steal from them?
Also, you keep saying it should stay private and in the courts…you do know that trials are a matter of public record…right? Like, open doors unless otherwise stated. The public actually has a right to know what goes on in a trial and the outcomes.
100%
From what I could gather, it sounds like The Civil Rights Lawyer (videos above) is helping Ben, Tyler, and those involved connect with lawyers finally.
I personally think Ben is young, and it’s not like they teach this in schools and the police use this to their advantage. Quite the opposite actually, they send cops to our schools to teach kids that cops are nice, they’re on the side of justice, etc. And Ben believed that, which is why he talks to them so much. He believes the police are good people and are there to help him and I don’t think I can fault him all that much for that. A suburban white kid growing up wouldn’t likely have had any experiences that would break that propaganda.
Hopefully, after this, he’ll be more wary in the future, and immediately reach out to a lawyer (though would it get the same attention and results if he did? That’s a discussion in and of itself.) The police, and most of our laws, have always been to protect property over people. I mean, law enforcement derived itself from slave catchers 🙃
Yeah, I think lots of people are starting to wake up and see that whenever money can buy influence, it leads to corrupt governments. I believe Aristotle defined them, so maybe there was a bit of lag in that upload 🙃 lol
But really, I think people are starting to realize that capitalism isn’t the dream they were promised it would be. And, I mean, a system that can only exist through exploitation, that will always seek to deregulate itself, and that creates the conditions for those that rise to the top to be the most narcissistic, unempathetic, and most willing to exploit…I mean 🤷♂️
It’s so cyclical that you’d hope we’d learn eventually but idk.
The lunch analogy is too generic for the complexity here and I think it breaks down entirely given the innate assumption that a parent’s responsibility is only a parent’s responsibility, which isn’t true.
Should the government provide free school lunches? Absolutely. That requires funding and legislative will. The government has a responsibility (well, theoretically) to protect and serve its people, including children and families. An overlap of responsibility if you will. Free school lunches does not infringe on anyone’s rights and instead betters communities, eases burden on struggling parents, and helps students perform and receive proper nutrition. And should a family or student wish to not receive a school lunch, they are free to opt out and bring their own. It doesn’t require scanning every student’s lunchbox or installing surveillance infrastructure in every kitchen. The intervention is proportionate to the problem.
Starmer’s proposal isn’t. Preventing nude image sharing at the device level requires either client-side scanning of all communications or breaking end-to-end encryption entirely. That’s mass surveillance infrastructure installed on every phone, affecting every adult, every journalist, every abuse survivor using encrypted messaging, every person who has ever sent a legal private image to another consenting adult. And unlike our lunch analogy, a family or student, nor an unaffiliated person altogether, has little to no option to opt out should they use one of these major platforms/devices. The harm of the intervention is categorically larger than the harm it addresses.
A better analogy: should a parent leave alcohol or an unsecured firearm accessible to a child? No, and we hold parents accountable for that. We don’t require routine home inspections of every household to verify compliance. The accountability lands on the person who chose to bring the dangerous item into proximity with the child and who controls access to it. The parent pays for the phone. The parent pays for the data plan. The parent hands the child the device. The tools to monitor and restrict that device already exist, provided by the large platforms, on routers, etc, and are largely unused.
The problem is real. The solution being proposed requires dismantling privacy for everyone to address the failures of some. There are targeted interventions that haven’t been exhausted. Those who stand to benefit are not the children, but the companies able to profit off the data collected and the governments able to invade privacy where there wasn’t said existing infrastructure to do so.
This is a controlling party (government/private companies) abusing a moral panic which has been common throughout history. Just look at the Patriot Act.
I think that’s a great argument.
You’re a petty, sad individual my friend. And you do not meet this current moment. Your comment implies that it is ok for corporations to take advantage of individuals and that police collusion should remain in the dark and is not a matter of public concern.
What a pathetic capitalist authoritarian bootlicker.
You also believe that protests should remain quiet and out of sight too don’t you?
Disgusting.
Im not currently banned, but they banned me for a bit for using the word revolution when referencing what America needs.
They also gave away user data to DHS cause they asked.
So. Yeah.