They probably won't. But that isn't even the point, it's the deflection. People had an option to vote. They didn't. They are complicit.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 847
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 847
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I never rejected anything, maybe try reading again and this time not just seeing what you want. And what was successful before doesn't mean it will be successful today. People just don't understand context or nuance. That's you dog.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Yes, they should listen, but it's two separate things. Regardless what the DNC does, each person has a choice, a chance cast a choice.
People had a choice, they could have impacted the outcome and choose not to. Those people, by not doing anything, were accepting that the worser outcome could happen, and they were ok with that. If they weren't, they would have taken action, within their power, to prevent it.
I think the main problem is "regularly watch"
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Yes they were significant enough to listen to, but at some point people need to take accountability. You can only control what you do, not others.
If the party was unwilling to change, they still had a choice to make. They made that choice. They had the ability to impact the outcome and they didn't.
There is more than one issue to care about in the world. Not voting for one side because of a single issue, when the other side has dozens of issues, is accepting that you are ok with either outcome. So those who choose not to vote told the world that they didn't care either way, because they had a chance to impact the outcome and didn't.
You said "The party would rather have trump than abandon their only issue." The reality is, people would rather have Trump than vote against a single issue, and that's what happened. And that single issue is still an issue! It did nothing.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
People can't control the party, but they could impact the outcome and choose not to.
Yeah, it wasn't one guy on Reddit lol. Why haven't you started the revolution?
And y'all wonder why people rag on .ml.
That doesn't even make sense....
Jesus what a mess of a sentence. You really tried to hamfist that one in there.
How does one go about building their own government/economic system?
I never said what Japan should be doing. Never once, that's you just auguring with yourself man lol. You don't even need me, you can just make up stuff I say and get mad about it all by yourself.
Ah yes, because unless you’re on a government payroll, you’re clearly unqualified to point out superficial policymaking. Must be nice to believe that calling out performative regulation is the same as claiming omniscience.
Must be huh? The combination of assumptions and ignorance is awesome. I mean lets ignore that the people making these decisions went to school for these things. What is your educational background to be making these claims? Or do you just know things and learned on Google, so you know how a country should handle these things.
GrapheneOS does primarily run on Pixel phones—because those are the only phones where the hardware allows verifiable, secure boot processes and full control over firmware. Samsung and most others lock down key components and make it impossible to truly sandbox or audit the system at the level GrapheneOS demands. That’s not a limitation of the OS—that’s a limitation of the closed, proprietary design of most Android OEMs.
Cool story bro, still makes your suggestion a garbage one.
If they actually wanted to disrupt the monopoly, they’d be mandating real platform openness—allowing non-Google OS installs, pushing for hardware-level access standards, and ensuring devices don’t lock out third-party operating systems or app ecosystems.
Yah, Japan should be pushing to control the specifics of how a company based in another country. That's the right move. This guy is big brain. Clearly.
But yeah, let’s all clap for another fine and pretend something changed.
No one is clapping about anything, they are just laughing at your nonsensical ranting.
This guy knows better than all of the professionals in the Japanese government, impressive. I mean he called out an OS that only runs on Google phones, but he's figured it out guys!
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I think UBI would actually solve a lot of issues, the creative communities' financial struggle being one of them.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?
Ok, and not every time a person wins there's a headline either, this is a moot point.
Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.
So, what is your point? People can win against big companies, even over IP. It has been done before, if you want I can list a bunch for you. I just researched to make sure I wasn't off base. You don't always have to have the most money to win. You know why? Because of IP law, the very thing you want to destroy.
There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.
Ok, and? Because a company makes money due to X doesn't automatically make X a bad thing. I've not seen one good plan laid out on how destorying IP would help the common man, it doesn't.
I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.
No, but you are clearly implying something with "Copyright didn’t exist for millenia. It didn’t stop authors from writing books." This ignores that those authors couldn't have their work downloaded and spread across the globe in minutes. You are bringing this up to prove a point, but give how much things have changes over the last few hundred years, the point falls flat. It is irrelevant once you look at all the nuance and reasons why and how they were able to create.
What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.
They do allow them. They allow them to make money off of their art. Back in the day you didn't have an interconnected global economy, you didn't have to worry about retirement or your 401k, of course it was easier back then, late stage capitalism didn't set in. But IP laws are what protect creators these days, so they can take a year off of work and write a book and still be able to eat.
Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.
Yes, absolutely a good point. But because a system is broken is not a reason to get rid of it. The legal system is broken and millionaires just get away with crimes, should we just get rid of all the laws? No. We should work to make them better.
IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs.
Source needed. Because this is a bold claim, that based on what I can find, is not true. People sell IP to companies all the time, so yes they then benefit from it, but the creator of the IP gets paid.
You brought up how lives have probably been lost because of scientific journal IP. How many lives do you think will be lost when big pharma realizes there's no money in creating a vaccine for a new disease? Who is making that investment? The govt? lol
Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. It would directly impart them! The small artist who had a good beat or came up with some slick lyrics would have them jacked. Every production company would be scrapping small artists looking for what they could take or steal, with 0 impact. This also goes with authors and writing books. How can they sign a book deal when a publisher can't guarantee it won't just get copied and given away? They now have no reason to pay authors.
They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?
They ABOLUSTLY do benefit from it, you're just looking at it as a "less money needs less protection" lens which I highly disagree with. A small artist can have a lot going for them and miss their opportunity because they were stolen. Or they were sampled and never for paid but the person who sampled them got rich. I mean there are dozens of ways to see why this would be a problem. The least of which is, why even make music or movies anymore? If every movie and song ever created can be legally pirated, companies just stop making them.
IP laws help everyone. EVERYONE. Just because companies make money off of them doesn't make them bad. Just because small creators don't make a lot of money doesn't mean they shouldn't own what they create. Everyone in favor of this just seems to want stuff for free without realizing the impact of that choice, it's extremely shortsighted.
I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.
The problem is a lot of Americans want this, they're cheering.