DarkwolfX37

Myriad Reality

So aside from you all still needing Last Recode, sounds like saturday onwards everyone is free for a while. Anyone want to play a multi or do like a dnd thing or something around then?

<Snipped quote by Etcetera>

it is very do you want to play democracy 3 cute it is killing me

@whizzball1

That has a multiplayer?

Myriad Reality

Question, when does everyone break?

Lunacy of Love: A CYOA Magical Girl Roleplay [Completed]

How do you mean, as it wasn't my intention to cut anyone out.

@Shifter_Master

I just had a plan that would have maybe gotten Makoto some money. That's what I meant by "cut out," that she won't be able to charge anyone since they're getting free supplies.

Lunacy of Love: A CYOA Magical Girl Roleplay [Completed]

I just got cut out by a god. I don't know how to feel about that.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

It's the rapid exposure that's the problem. I do have a little more confidence now that the general "cutsie-animeVNstuffs" will be enough of a deterrent to prevent the kind of influx of children FNaF and Undertale had—as the internet would put it, "its power level is too high for normies." Eternal September is a real phenomenon and DDLC is too wholesome to fall prey to it.

@Etcetera

You can always just ignore the morons. :/

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

NO!

WE HAD SUCH A WHOLESOME FANBASE AND MATPAT JUST HAS TO STICK HIS NOSE INTO IT AND RUIN IT!

@Etcetera

He's not ruining anything :/
He's basically just saying how the next game is.

Myriad Reality

I'm so torn because I want to watch the DDLC Game Theory but I also want to figure it all out on my own like ICEY.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

It's really not. I figured that you of all people would agree that whenever the government gets involved, it makes things worse. We need to roll back the governmental regulations to the point that there can be actual competition, and between the FCC and the FTC, only one of those is a trust-buster.
Literally all net nueturality regulations in place can be argued the same way because it's an inherently non-linear kind of system. Unless the law is specifically written by network engineers with very precise goals in mind, there will always be a way to slip through the cracks. That's why that provision wasn't written broad enough for the ISPs to slip through; rather, it was written broad enough for the FTC to actually do their job. Laws aren't contracts—in courts, laws are upheld by the spirit rather than the letter; this is the government actually doing something they can anti-trust companies for because the subjectivity allows the FTC to stop these things. Also, note that Pai is the chairman of the FCC. He's giving up the influence he has over the internet to another organization he has no control over.

@Dynamics

If you're going to have a government then do it right. And there are countless cases in history of the government doing single things well enough. It's not an "the government is always wrong" it's "the government is often wrong." You wouldn't be arguing against the laws preventing manual child labor in factories, and if the government came out with something actually stopping the bullshit monopolies by taking extra control over ISPs then you wouldn't be saying "oh that's automatically bad because it's the government." You're just using the government as a boogyman because it happens to align with your position this one time. Doing that often enough puts this incorrect idea that the government can't do any good into someone. This is your monthly anarchist reminder that governments exist to limit human flaws by banding together with enough threat of force that the people can't compete thereby forcing them to limit their shitty selves. You have to limit markets or there won't be a market, the only workable capitalism is regulated capitalism. The only question is whether the regulation is extensive or not, and the regulations on ISPs aren't good enough.
And Trump gave half his responsibilities to his kids, what's your point? Rather than fixing what he's in charge of to do better, he's trying to get rid of something that worked and shovel off responsibility to another group. Are you really trying to say that the FTC has less work than the FCC to the point that it's a good idea to shift the work? Because that's not the case.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Except it's not. Have you not seen the ISP conglomeration bonanza the past several years Title II has been in effect? AT&T is attempting to merge with Time Warner, of all companies, and the FCC doesn't care. All they care about is spying on American citizens and with them in charge, they won't attack ISPs. You only end up getting destroyed by both ends because this deal allows the government to enter and throw in their own special spice of regulation. The ISP monopoly problem was created by the government, and you don't fix a problem caused by governmental influence with more governmental influence. The FTC is more limited when it comes to hurting consumers through government means and they have a much better track record for actually stopping big business from going out of control. And, if you read the repeal terms, you'll find the following:

"Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, making anticompetitive arrangements illegal. If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements would be per se illegal under the antitrust laws.518"

This quote prevents ISPs from doing exactly what you're expressing concern over. If they attempt to discriminate against data and block it/slow it down based on the content type, the FTC will invoke the restrictions outlined in the Sherman Act Antitrust Laws, Section 144, p.85.

@Dynamics

The ONLY cure for bad government influence is better government influence. There's a reason that governments are a thing. Regulating horrible people is exclusively the job of a government.
Except that's not true. If you read that from the perspective of a lawyer, you'd notice that it doesn't block those thing. The way that's going to be immediately attacked is "They can block it so long as it isn't anti competitive." It's not going to stop anything. Not only that, but companies were already banned from anti-competitive arrangements and they just set up maps of where one company could work and the others wouldn't compete there. This isn't good enough to take away the current protections for.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

I don't listen to the guy—I literally have the same argument as the networking/infosec community, i.e. the people without whom the internet wouldn't function at all. You don't actually believe the FCC is on your side. There's absolutely no way.

@Dynamics

Of course the FCC isn't on our side, but the "oh there were no problems before this so there'll be none if we get rid of it" is bullshit, it's PROVEN that it works, there are tons of cases where ISPs were doing bullshit that they weren't able to once it passed. Plus, if nothing else, keeping it there increases the chances of new ISPs rising up to challenge the monopolies that currently exist.