Board index » Non Phoenix Wright » Wright & Co. Law Offices

Page 1 of 1[ 7 posts ]
 


Flash is deadTopic%20Title
User avatar

The Moon

Gender: Male

Rank: Ace Attorney

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 3462

Hello everyone, I come here today to let you all know, that Flash, the original web media player, has finally been laid to rest.
This is truly the most awful thing happening in the world right now, hundreds of thousands of porn games will no longer be playable, crudely made animations made 20 years ago are now completely unusable in their native format, all for the sake of "Security" I want you to seriously consider the implications of an entire format being pulled just because the original creator said that's what they wanted. Imagine if Toshiba and Philips up and decided they no longer wanted people to have VCR's due to them having the ABILITY to be used as a weapon, so they take every VCR ever made and destroy them for your safety. It doesn't matter if you paid for it, they made the format and by God you just can't be trusted with it anymore.
That's what Adobe did, they pulled the plug on an entire artform. An entire generation of creative works is now gone as far as the casual viewer is concerned.
Moving something that you don't like to another platform for the sake of "security" (I.E. CONTROL!) is something that shouldn't happen in a free society, it's not right.
Don't just scoff and say "well you can still see it, you just need to do X and Y"
THAT'S NOT THE POINT! Putting up barriers to these works is wrong, it's just another form of... some word that starts with "C"
You can claim it's fine, but what happens when it's something YOU care about being taken down? Or a creator YOU like being squelched?
You need to recognize that the fundamental rights of all creators, AND viewers should be inalienable.
Submitting to a giant corporation, and them telling you which rights you can and can't have or express is complete lunacy.
I don't like every flash ever made, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to exist.
It's not just that they stopped supporting it, that's one thing. I can understand that they want to move on and create other things. But they didn't just let it die on it's own, they KILLED it.
They up and removed something that millions of people people followed, entire groups of people made connections based on their love for flash. And one company can just flip a switch and kill it for everyone? How ubiquitous does a commodity need to be before it's warranted regulation by elected officials? We regulate everything else; Oil, Logging, Hospitals, water, radio, TV, banks, all of these companies need to abide by specific rules so as to not obtain a.... another word I'm forgetting that starts with the letter "M", I think a board game is named after it...
Anyways, why is it OK for platforms to be the final say so in what rights a creator has? A water company needs to give fresh water and not charge too much, a gas company can't just decide to shut someone's heat off just because they don't trust the occupant, why can Adobe shut down an entire platform, and disenfranchise millions of people?
But that's fine right? They're a private company and it's THEIR software, their website. Anyone who wants to see old flash movies can just go somewhere else, it's not like every other company would conspire against that one thing, right?


OH WAIT...
Re: Flash is deadTopic%20Title
User avatar

Gender: Male

Location: Japan

Rank: Decisive Witness

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:57 am

Posts: 167

thanks for reminding me.

gone ahead and found ways to play all the old flash games again.

bless the preservation efforts by people
Re: Flash is deadTopic%20Title
User avatar

Zhang Juanli (Rabbit)

Gender: Male

Location: Scotland

Rank: Ace Attorney

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm

Posts: 14344

Yeah fond memories of a lot of nice nostalgic flash videos and games from high school days.

It's a shame things didn't work out for it.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
Image

You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Flash is deadTopic%20Title
User avatar

In Justice We Trust

Gender: Male

Location: Southern California

Rank: Admin

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:31 pm

Posts: 4197

It's okay, DoMaya; as long as you don't do so in a way that violates the rules, you can talk about how Google and other companies are no longer doing business with Parler (that's what this is actually about, right? If you really are just talking about Flash, I'll delete this post). Talking about Parler doesn't in and of itself warrant a ban. Frankly, I've been trying to gather my thoughts on the matter myself.

Based on my admittedly limited understanding of existing laws, the tech oligopoly are within their rights to refuse service to Parler. However, I'd rather not leave it at that, as the "this is what the law says" argument only really addresses whether or not what's going on is legal, not whether or not it's right.

One thing I'm trying to put into words is the difference between being able to do something and being allowed to do something and how that difference relates to the idea of freedom. As an example, let's say I want to say that blue jays are beautiful. Whether or not I have a social media account, I am allowed to say that blue jays are beautiful. A social media account enables me to say it in the "presence" of more people than would normally be possible, though. Depriving me of a social media account thus reduces my capacity to inform other people of the beauty of blue jays without outright forbidding me to do so. What I'm less sure of is the extent to which the expanded ability to express myself provided by said account is in and of itself a freedom that the government should protect. Taken to its logical extreme, such a freedom would entail other users being forbidden to block me on and whatever platform I use being forbidden to ban me, regardless of how obnoxious I might become. As far as private companies providing me with a platform is concerned, I'm not convinced the government should be able to forbid them to ban me or other users of the platform to block me.

The issue at hand doesn't just deal with individual users' freedom of expression, though. The incitements of violence on Parler that got it into this mess have gotten people killed. As I understand it, Apple stopped doing business with Parler because the latter refused to clamp down on posts inciting violence and that other companies had similar reasons for cutting ties. I'm no fan of violence and prefer peaceful solutions whenever possible, but I don't deny that circumstances sometimes make violence the only means of bringing about justice. That said, I'm unsure of what a consistent policy with regards to what kind of incitements of violence are acceptable would entail, so I can't in good conscience fault Apple and Parler's other former service providers for imposing a blanket policy against such things.

What bugs me about all this is that there were almost certainly people on Parler who did not in any way try to incite violence (e.g. making bellicose posts, sharing bellicose posts); they lost their use of Parler because other users were causing trouble and Parler refused to crack down on it. From a practical standpoint, I understand why it came to that, but it still stinks. Court Records has automated anti-spambot measures that outright prevent large numbers of spambots from registering (needless to say, some still get through), but every now and then, a human whose IP address is in a bad "neighborhood" is also prevented from registering. Words cannot express how much it bothers me that our automated anti-spambot measures prevent even one human from registering, but we would be teeming with spambots if we did away with that layer of our defenses. Within the past day, more than three hundred registration attempts were automatically blocked and while I can't prove my assumption to be correct, I think it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of those would-be users were spambots. Apple and Parler's other former service providers were in a similar situation; while there were probably plenty of users on Parler who weren't causing problems, a lot were and Parler refused to take sufficient action against them.

I suspect a forum overrun by spambots will ultimately be abandoned by its human users as it becomes increasingly tedious for humans to engage in conversations there. The situation is far more serious on Parler, though; users there were engaging in behavior that can get and has gotten people killed. Turning a blind eye to a spambot infestation is lazy and self-destructive. Turning a blind eye to incitements of violence puts outsiders in danger. Users' freedom of expression is important, but so are the lives of those whom certain elements on Parler have called for violence against. I'm inclined to support prioritizing the latter in this particular case. A corpse might arguably have freedom of expression, but it is incapable of exercising it. By contrast, a living person deprived of their access to Parler can still express themself by other means. Were there an option that restrained the guilty without harming the innocent, I'd be all for it, but no such option exists, so I'm instead inclined to support what I see as the lesser of two evils. Those who truly had nothing to do with Parler being taken offline have my empathy all the same, for what little it's worth.

I could also touch on questions of the circumstances under which private companies should be permitted to deny service to clients for what they deem bad behavior (or as the case may be with Parler, violating the companies' terms of service), but I get the impression you're concerned more about individual Parler users' now-diminished capacity to express themselves.
Image
Re: Flash is deadTopic%20Title
User avatar

The Moon

Gender: Male

Rank: Ace Attorney

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 3462

General Luigi wrote:
Spoiler: Space saving
it's okay, DoMaya; as long as you don't do so in a way that violates the rules, you can talk about how Google and other companies are no longer doing business with Parler (that's what this is actually about, right? If you really are just talking about Flash, I'll delete this post). Talking about Parler doesn't in and of itself warrant a ban. Frankly, I've been trying to gather my thoughts on the matter myself.

Based on my admittedly limited understanding of existing laws, the tech oligopoly are within their rights to refuse service to Parler. However, I'd rather not leave it at that, as the "this is what the law says" argument only really addresses whether or not what's going on is legal, not whether or not it's right.

One thing I'm trying to put into words is the difference between being able to do something and being allowed to do something and how that difference relates to the idea of freedom. As an example, let's say I want to say that blue jays are beautiful. Whether or not I have a social media account, I am allowed to say that blue jays are beautiful. A social media account enables me to say it in the "presence" of more people than would normally be possible, though. Depriving me of a social media account thus reduces my capacity to inform other people of the beauty of blue jays without outright forbidding me to do so. What I'm less sure of is the extent to which the expanded ability to express myself provided by said account is in and of itself a freedom that the government should protect. Taken to its logical extreme, such a freedom would entail other users being forbidden to block me on and whatever platform I use being forbidden to ban me, regardless of how obnoxious I might become. As far as private companies providing me with a platform is concerned, I'm not convinced the government should be able to forbid them to ban me or other users of the platform to block me.

The issue at hand doesn't just deal with individual users' freedom of expression, though. The incitements of violence on Parler that got it into this mess have gotten people killed. As I understand it, Apple stopped doing business with Parler because the latter refused to clamp down on posts inciting violence and that other companies had similar reasons for cutting ties. I'm no fan of violence and prefer peaceful solutions whenever possible, but I don't deny that circumstances sometimes make violence the only means of bringing about justice. That said, I'm unsure of what a consistent policy with regards to what kind of incitements of violence are acceptable would entail, so I can't in good conscience fault Apple and Parler's other former service providers for imposing a blanket policy against such things.

What bugs me about all this is that there were almost certainly people on Parler who did not in any way try to incite violence (e.g. making bellicose posts, sharing bellicose posts); they lost their use of Parler because other users were causing trouble and Parler refused to crack down on it. From a practical standpoint, I understand why it came to that, but it still stinks. Court Records has automated anti-spambot measures that outright prevent large numbers of spambots from registering (needless to say, some still get through), but every now and then, a human whose IP address is in a bad "neighborhood" is also prevented from registering. Words cannot express how much it bothers me that our automated anti-spambot measures prevent even one human from registering, but we would be teeming with spambots if we did away with that layer of our defenses. Within the past day, more than three hundred registration attempts were automatically blocked and while I can't prove my assumption to be correct, I think it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of those would-be users were spambots. Apple and Parler's other former service providers were in a similar situation; while there were probably plenty of users on Parler who weren't causing problems, a lot were and Parler refused to take sufficient action against them.

I suspect a forum overrun by spambots will ultimately be abandoned by its human users as it becomes increasingly tedious for humans to engage in conversations there. The situation is far more serious on Parler, though; users there were engaging in behavior that can get and has gotten people killed. Turning a blind eye to a spambot infestation is lazy and self-destructive. Turning a blind eye to incitements of violence puts outsiders in danger. Users' freedom of expression is important, but so are the lives of those whom certain elements on Parler have called for violence against. I'm inclined to support prioritizing the latter in this particular case. A corpse might arguably have freedom of expression, but it is incapable of exercising it. By contrast, a living person deprived of their access to Parler can still express themself by other means. Were there an option that restrained the guilty without harming the innocent, I'd be all for it, but no such option exists, so I'm instead inclined to support what I see as the lesser of two evils. Those who truly had nothing to do with Parler being taken offline have my empathy all the same, for what little it's worth.

I could also touch on questions of the circumstances under which private companies should be permitted to deny service to clients for what they deem bad behavior (or as the case may be with Parler, violating the companies' terms of service), but I get the impression you're concerned more about individual Parler users' now-diminished capacity to express themselves.



The problem with the Parler ban is that it's discriminatory, and very clearly breaks anti competitive practices.
No one cracked down on the multiple people who endorsed the BLM riots, which had far more casualties AND property damage than the capital hill raid.
I condemn BOTH actions, but this almost religious love/hate for politicians is what disgusts me the most. Why do people think the politicians are beyond reproach? I don't care WHO'S side they're on, a politician's life isn't worth any more than anyone else's.
I really can't wrap my head around it, where was the outcry for the BLM riots? How do people not see that BOTH groups claimed to be disenfranchised? Don't we patronize blacks (and the other people who joined in) by saying they just couldn't control their anger? One of these three HAS to be true:
1. Both actions were equally vile, but we care more about politicians than common folks.
2. Trump/Conservative supporters are being discriminated against
3. BLM riots were incited by left leaning politicians and websites.

I don't care about politics anymore, I just want the worship of politicians to end, because THAT'S what's causing the violence.

Not the Democrats
Not the Republicans
Not the Cops, blacks, illegal aliens, China, Russia, Italy now apparently?
We're putting the lives and beliefs of our leaders above our own, when they've shown time and time again that they don't care about us.
And this is the question/statement I've been asking (and pointing out) to everyone just so overjoyed that Biden got elected; What changed in YOUR life that was directly caused by Trump?
What changed in YOUR life that was directly caused by Obama? or Bush?
US FIGHTING amongst each-other is the only thing that's changed our lives, they don't want us to co-operate. This is all about class difference, and this crackdown on conservative websites/personalities is just proof. "Squelch the cretins who DARED to threaten US!" (I've seen reports of some far left accounts being banned too, and I don't have my head so far up my own ass to think it's fine when it happens to THEM)

The spirit of America was born of a rebel, not a rebel to law, or God, or even it's fellow man.
But a rebel to people far away telling you how to live your life; Machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts.
Don't worship these machines.
I'm not telling you not to vote, and definitely not to go full blackpill. Nihilism is the death of the soul.
I'm saying that your code of ethics and conduct shouldn't come from the same people trying to control you.
A wrong is not a right, no matter what those false idols tells us.
Re: Flash is deadTopic%20Title
User avatar

Zhang Juanli (Rabbit)

Gender: Male

Location: Scotland

Rank: Ace Attorney

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm

Posts: 14344

Hmm I don't think it's the politicians are more important souls than any other as much as processes are more important that people. I think we can all agree that Democracy is a treasured practice in our cultures and is probably more important than what any one person wants. That's the difference for me.

I do think "whataboutism" with the BLM movement is...not valuable because the motives were entirely different. If you want to break it down into sheer quantities then that's not really a great measure because it ignores the values and intents behind what happened.

BLM was a mostly peaceful movement from my understanding to stand up against systematic oppression. Alongside that movement were some opportunists who looted.

The Trump Insurrection was a coordinated and motivated attempt to overthrow democracy and was violent from the outset with people preparing and coordinating for violence.

So with your three choices I think the first one is inaccurate, it's about the what and why the events happened. The BLM protests happened for good reasons and weren't an attempt to destroy Democratic processes. The Insurrection happened for terrible reasons and could have had terrible implications for Democracy.

As for the 2nd one? I don't think I'd call it discrimination as much as "recognition". I don't want to hire a racist as a counsellor for POC so in the hiring processes I'd likely reject someone who is open about racist beliefs. From what I can see of the description of it, discrimination requires that the process is "unjust." If there's good sensible reasons behind the process then I don't think discrimination follows, it's just a wolf whistle to try and make a reasonable process seem unreasonable. For Parler and the other bans that have occurred it's a natural consequence of people being open about values that are not supported by society at large and these being recognised. It's like if you come in my house, you obey my rules and if you don't you leave. Parler didn't moderate appropriately and a lot of people have made their values clear and so have been asked to leave. Yes there may be innocent souls banned by this but there are alternative platforms, and said innocent souls would probably want to distance themselves from platforms with dangerous values. Any step to make it harder for the far-right to organise is important especially when there's speculations of a further attack, any disruption to communications is borderline a tactical operation at that point.

Yeah I don't think politicians should be idealised the way Trump should be but this isn't about worshipping the individuals in congress, it's about the process that they tried to disrupt.

As for what changed in my life since Trump got defeated? I breathe a lot easier now about the moral soul of the world I guess. A political shift away from an ideology that seeks out hate and pushes people away. There's plenty in the UK still to deal with that I hate and many who were inspired by Trump's brand of politics. I hope that seeing Trump defeated at the height of his power will show these other politicians that cults do not work and deter people from trying that again (or at least in the short term put pressure on Boris Johnson as he's losing a strong ally in America). I'm not in America so nearly nothing material changed. Still I relax a lot more knowing things will get better. I wouldn't expect anything to change yet given the inauguration hasn't happened but I look forward to more enfranchisement for American citizens and maybe more crackdowns on social justice matters. At the least I just don't want a President who seeks division everywhere. The absence of Trump alone is an improvement because his words and rhetoric were a poison.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
Image

You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: Flash is deadTopic%20Title
User avatar

The Moon

Gender: Male

Rank: Ace Attorney

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 3462

Spoiler:
Pierre wrote:
Hmm I don't think it's the politicians are more important souls than any other as much as processes are more important that people. I think we can all agree that Democracy is a treasured practice in our cultures and is probably more important than what any one person wants. That's the difference for me.

I do think "whataboutism" with the BLM movement is...not valuable because the motives were entirely different. If you want to break it down into sheer quantities then that's not really a great measure because it ignores the values and intents behind what happened.

BLM was a mostly peaceful movement from my understanding to stand up against systematic oppression. Alongside that movement were some opportunists who looted.

The Trump Insurrection was a coordinated and motivated attempt to overthrow democracy and was violent from the outset with people preparing and coordinating for violence.

So with your three choices I think the first one is inaccurate, it's about the what and why the events happened. The BLM protests happened for good reasons and weren't an attempt to destroy Democratic processes. The Insurrection happened for terrible reasons and could have had terrible implications for Democracy.

As for the 2nd one? I don't think I'd call it discrimination as much as "recognition". I don't want to hire a racist as a counsellor for POC so in the hiring processes I'd likely reject someone who is open about racist beliefs. From what I can see of the description of it, discrimination requires that the process is "unjust." If there's good sensible reasons behind the process then I don't think discrimination follows, it's just a wolf whistle to try and make a reasonable process seem unreasonable. For Parler and the other bans that have occurred it's a natural consequence of people being open about values that are not supported by society at large and these being recognised. It's like if you come in my house, you obey my rules and if you don't you leave. Parler didn't moderate appropriately and a lot of people have made their values clear and so have been asked to leave. Yes there may be innocent souls banned by this but there are alternative platforms, and said innocent souls would probably want to distance themselves from platforms with dangerous values. Any step to make it harder for the far-right to organise is important especially when there's speculations of a further attack, any disruption to communications is borderline a tactical operation at that point.

Yeah I don't think politicians should be idealised the way Trump should be but this isn't about worshipping the individuals in congress, it's about the process that they tried to disrupt.

As for what changed in my life since Trump got defeated? I breathe a lot easier now about the moral soul of the world I guess. A political shift away from an ideology that seeks out hate and pushes people away. There's plenty in the UK still to deal with that I hate and many who were inspired by Trump's brand of politics. I hope that seeing Trump defeated at the height of his power will show these other politicians that cults do not work and deter people from trying that again (or at least in the short term put pressure on Boris Johnson as he's losing a strong ally in America). I'm not in America so nearly nothing material changed. Still I relax a lot more knowing things will get better. I wouldn't expect anything to change yet given the inauguration hasn't happened but I look forward to more enfranchisement for American citizens and maybe more crackdowns on social justice matters. At the least I just don't want a President who seeks division everywhere. The absence of Trump alone is an improvement because his words and rhetoric were a poison.



It's really hard to have a discussion with someone just parroting when they see on the news, who lacks the self awareness to accuse fans/followers of Trump as being in a cult...

Your entire statement, from BLM being "mostly peaceful" to the "INSURRECTION" that almost happened at capital hill, with less than 100 people actually entering the building.

How does the thousands of people protesting outside the capital with only 100 going inside not make it "mostly peaceful"?

"They're not going to stop after election day, and they SHOULD not"
How is this NOT inciting violence?

Everyone says Trump is racist, yet they never cite anything, they just take it as a given that the orange bad man the news told them was racist... is racist.

His actions certainly don't reflect that, which of his policies repealed the 13th amendment? Well one of his policies helped promote "Excellence and Innovation at historically black universities" Or maybe the First Step Act a system implemented to help prisoners actually get out of prison, which as of November 2019 had released over 3000 people.
More minorities voted for trump in 2020 than did in 2016, at least the New York Post, National Review, and News Week claim so.
Are you going to tell me now they just have internalized racism?

Politicians don't radicalize people, the news does.
Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ] 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

 Board index » Non Phoenix Wright » Wright & Co. Law Offices

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Brendan2k5 and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to:  
News News Site map Site map SitemapIndex SitemapIndex RSS Feed RSS Feed Channel list Channel list
Powered by phpBB

phpBB SEO