I will bet you that people thought the same thing about net neutrality. Like was pointed out in an article the other day, one of the reform bills has bipartisan support.
It's worth noting, as well, that the bug bounty program is made to let people report vulnerability issues, not just general bugs. So Rockstar actually made an exception in this case.
Great games were being made long before lootboxes became a thing, and many developers who don't use lootboxes still make great games.
The idea that lootboxes are necessary for the games industry to make a profit is a lie perpetrated by, who else, games industry execs.
As for the trickle-down effect you indicate in your other comment, that's bull as well. Activision-Blizzard, for instance, had a record year in 2019, which they celebrated by firing 800 employees.
These were the cheats he used, according to the original lawsuit:
Cheats give a cheater power to do or see things that others players cannot. For instance, a cheat might enable the cheater to see through solid objects, teleport, impersonate another player by “spoofing” that player’s user name, or make moves other players cannot, such as a spin followed by an instant headshot to another player.
Not exactly what one would call improvements in a battle royale game.
We know it's an improvement because other people use YOUR improvements on that company's product.
If these "improvements" ruin the game experience for other players, then they're not improvements.
This wasn't a simply QoL mod; it was a hacking tool used for cheating. The 14-year old was an idiot, and the last thing he deserves would be a gig working for Epic.
Much more to gain by remaining the perpetual martyr. They rely on the narrative that they are, in fact, the persecuted minority for holding a difference of opinion and tend to be very quiet that said opinion is one in favor of white supremacy and racism.
They can't do that if they actually win the public argument and have to start competing with real issues instead.
Seems to me that a "David v Goliath"-style win, even if it was just a tiny part of the whole lawsuit, would be more beneficial to them here.
Amazon's lawyers said previously that they would be willing to reinstate the site if Parler agreed to implementing proper moderation policies. So I don't think it's inconceivable that Parler's lawyers could have made the argument.
They just failed to in this case.
To be clear, Parler reaped what it sowed, but the idea that Parler would intentionally throw away a potential win against Big Tech, who their users hate anyway, doesn't make sense to me. At least not compared to the alternative.
But on the other hand, a competent and cohesive argument for reinstatement of the website that could have given them the website back would've painted them as heroes who fight, and win, against Big Tech. That would have been a big win on the user front.
Or, they knew they would never actually win the case, so those claims were thrown out as red meat to Parler's userbase as a way to play the victim. They know they attract the kinds of people who will accept wild claims without evidence, so they know that pretending there's a grand conspiracy against them will work to retain some of that base, even if there's no possible way the claims could be factual..
I know we're already talking about lawyers that seem fairly incompetent, but that makes no sense. Why intentionally include claims that are useless in a legal sense, just to rile up users that seem intent on sticking around anyway?
Kinda. A small section of the Twitter-sphere have tried to argue that there's a straight line from Gamergate to the riots. I really wish that was an Onion-article.
Re: Re: So if we lose section 230, could we not then put are web
I will bet you that people thought the same thing about net neutrality. Like was pointed out in an article the other day, one of the reform bills has bipartisan support.
RE: the bug bounty
It's worth noting, as well, that the bug bounty program is made to let people report vulnerability issues, not just general bugs. So Rockstar actually made an exception in this case.
Re: Re:
Great games were being made long before lootboxes became a thing, and many developers who don't use lootboxes still make great games.
The idea that lootboxes are necessary for the games industry to make a profit is a lie perpetrated by, who else, games industry execs.
As for the trickle-down effect you indicate in your other comment, that's bull as well. Activision-Blizzard, for instance, had a record year in 2019, which they celebrated by firing 800 employees.
Re:
That still doesn't change that these publishers make a buttload of money off Google's and Facebook's links, in the form of extra site traffic.
And to put what others have said in a more succinct way: maybe these media houses should just "git gud".
Re:
Are you being intentionally vague about which bug, so your tantrum seems justified?
Re:
There are plenty of exceptions besides Voice.
Re:
That doesn't make any sense. Why would they pay for something they don't have to while having no serious competitors?
Re: Imagine yourself at 14...
These were the cheats he used, according to the original lawsuit:
Not exactly what one would call improvements in a battle royale game.
Re: Imagine yourself at 14...
If these "improvements" ruin the game experience for other players, then they're not improvements.
This wasn't a simply QoL mod; it was a hacking tool used for cheating. The 14-year old was an idiot, and the last thing he deserves would be a gig working for Epic.
Re:
Please provide an example of Techdirt harping over a private corporation moderating user content.
(untitled comment)
I appreciate Kessler and the senators reminding me how much of a clusterfuck Blizzard's Real ID debacle was.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Par-lie
Seems to me that a "David v Goliath"-style win, even if it was just a tiny part of the whole lawsuit, would be more beneficial to them here.
Re:
Amazon's lawyers said previously that they would be willing to reinstate the site if Parler agreed to implementing proper moderation policies. So I don't think it's inconceivable that Parler's lawyers could have made the argument.
They just failed to in this case.
To be clear, Parler reaped what it sowed, but the idea that Parler would intentionally throw away a potential win against Big Tech, who their users hate anyway, doesn't make sense to me. At least not compared to the alternative.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Par-lie
But on the other hand, a competent and cohesive argument for reinstatement of the website that could have given them the website back would've painted them as heroes who fight, and win, against Big Tech. That would have been a big win on the user front.
Re: Re: Re: Par-lie
I know we're already talking about lawyers that seem fairly incompetent, but that makes no sense. Why intentionally include claims that are useless in a legal sense, just to rile up users that seem intent on sticking around anyway?
Re:
Kinda. A small section of the Twitter-sphere have tried to argue that there's a straight line from Gamergate to the riots. I really wish that was an Onion-article.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/01/07/gamergate-to-blame-for-washington-d-c-prote sts-claim-mainstream-video-game-media-personalities/
(untitled comment)
Considering that MK is an 18+-rated game, it's ironic that NRS aren't displaying the sense befitting an adult.
Re:
You don't know that yet.
I beg to differ. A thorough response with reasons for and against a decision can absolutely be nuanced, even if the end result is ban vs. don't ban.
No, it can't. Thinking that any decision will be indicative of future ones is fallacious.
Re: Par-lie
That, or the lawyers just suck at research.
Re: Just a thought.
It's worse because ISP's have overhyped the technology long before it's widely available.
More comments from Strawb >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Strawb.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt