“That does mean not platforming people who make antisemitic statements or who put out anything that will incite violence and hatred towards Jews.”

The double standards show. No one could state the same thing about rampant anti-trans hatred in the UK without facing significant backlash.

Ever heard of homonationalism?

Legend

And provided an insight to the whole flow of dark money.

Edit: Otherwirse they could just brush it off as a rumor/conspiracy theory.

Here’s some:

https://www.desmog.com/2024/08/14/project-2025-billionaire-donor-heritage-foundation-donald-trump-jd-vance-charles-koch-peter-coors/

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/2600-leaked-anti-trans-lobbyist-emails

https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/uncovering-christian-right-anti-trans-disinformation-network

https://www.theverge.com/tech/874721/epstein-thiel-musk-trump-metoo

Sure there is more.

I think that the judge said that the decision does not mean that Meta acted lawfully, but that the authors did not present convincing arguments, and wishes that other plaintiffs will come up with better arguments to set a legal precedent against Meta, who stands to make trillions out of it, and thus can compensate the creators.

Conclusions: Legal torrenting is not in sight because of this. And we watch capitalist accumulation in real time.

Oh thanks, I have been looking for this. Someone referenced this argument but I could not retrieve the exact source.

I expected they would say that “downloading only” is fair use. But they also argued uploading? These girls have gone wild.

I also saw elsewhere that they said “decades-old copyrights law” can’t hinder their innovation. And this is what rival capitalist interests manufacturing legal precedent looks like.

Maxwell insisted on grand titles – “International Journal of” was a favourite prefix. Peter Ashby, a former vice president at Pergamon, described this to me as a “PR trick”, but it also reflected a deep understanding of how science, and society’s attitude to science, had changed. Collaborating and getting your work seen on the international stage was becoming a new form of prestige for researchers, and in many cases Maxwell had the market cornered before anyone else realised it existed.

If you explain to any outsider that what we call science is a game of collecting and showing off units of prestige, they will be flabbergasted. Maxwell catered to the most superficial and vain aspects of the human psyche, and traded in a measure of righteousness. This is genius, I will grant him that, but opposite to the objectives of science. He made the worst possible metric about which to measure everything, and created a global system of narcissistic organizations selling their souls to publish to these journals.

And scientists are the least probable to rebel against this status quo. If anything, it will make them appear as big-time asses who are full of themselves. They are bound to project more legitimacy onto the system, similar to doomsday cultists.

Aspesi was not the first person to incorrectly predict the end of the scientific publishing boom, and he is unlikely to be the last. It is hard to believe that what is essentially a for-profit oligopoly functioning within an otherwise heavily regulated, government-funded enterprise can avoid extinction in the long run. But publishing has been deeply enmeshed in the science profession for decades. Today, every scientist knows that their career depends on being published, and professional success is especially determined by getting work into the most prestigious journals.

It is the departments’ choice to cancel subscriptions anytime and start publishing on their own terms. They are equally to blame when they esteem reputation above all, and measure reputation by publishing to these journals. Let’s not pretend that big-shot universities are simply taken hostage by a handful corrupt billionaires. They’re in on it.

It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill. Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this setup. A 2004 parliamentary science and technology committee report on the industry drily observed that “in a traditional market suppliers are paid for the goods they provide”. A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.

Racket.

Great article, thanks!

Well, this is something that felt off indeed. But please explain. So http(s) is the world of http requests, but you can also have other services like ftp, ssh, bittorrent and what not. Is that what you mean? So the WWW is just the global interconnection of web pages strictly, over the Internet? Would this apply to any internet? /genuine

Is this …mansplaining?

An internet in theory is a network of other computer networks (not single computers). The Internet is the world wide web.

See, this is the bit I don’t get… If there are two people, like ANY two people, that their crimes and corruptions are enough to subvert the status quo, then what fucking difference does it make if they cover it up so hard. The message is still the same, that there is so much crime and corruption in government that a violent response is in order. Are they so stupid, or so confident?

AFAIK it does three hops like Tor Browser, but they are within a Mullvad owned network instead. Not “the Tor network”. They got pretty good ratings for plenty private browser parameters, at least last year. Myself and others I know have it at least on the side for some more private browsing. It can still give you issues with many sites as well as banks TBH. Together with their VPN it makes a good solution if you are not a complete paranoid. It is good to have Mullvad as a second option, and have perhaps a hardened Firefox for your eponymous browsing.