jabberwockxeno

For you and /u/funkdamental , I think part of the issue/situation /u/geoffmk is in is that he KNOWS that it's not just activision, so any single statement aimed at activision sort of ignores the larger systemic problem.

It's not even just sexism or misdogy or sexual abuse, either, it's also crunch, forced overtime without pay, overuse of contractors, and so many other things.

I would!

Sort of.

That's indeed the case with trade marks, but only with trade marks, and it doesn't really work quite like that. The actual term for it is Genericization.

It's not a case where if nintendo doesn't go after fan works, they lose the ability to do so at all. Rather, genericization is when a brand name becomes so widespread and intrinsically linked to the product or service itself, it becomes synonymous with what the product/service is to the general public.

For example, the Yo Yo was originally a brand name, but just due to how widespread that brand was, eventually after many years, to the public "Yo Yo" meant that type of toy, not the brand of that type of toy.

So yeah, that's not really an excuse for Nintendo to go after fan works, because that sort of situation doesn't apply.

What could happen, and what nearly did back in the 80's, is that Nintendo consoles could become such a standard that to the public that the word "Nintendo" just becomes a synonym for "video game console".

I find "Right to Repair" often exclusively focuses on carving out exceptions to enable repairs for mainstream devices like smartphones and vehicles, without addressing the underlying legislation (such as the DMCA's anti DRM circumvention provisions) or more niche devices, or for non-repair modification (IE modding of video games for personal use)

Are you worried that by focusing only on exceptions for common devices, and only on repairs rather then other modifications; that the Right-To-Repair movement is only pressuring legislators and industry players to concede the bare minimum to appease the broader public, and that if successful it will dry up the political will or public demand for broader or more fundamental reform?

Recently Twitter banned a controverial news report from an outlet that has been widely criticized as being inaccurate and disinformation.

There's been a lot of disscusion on various platforms, as far as I can tell largerly falling along political lines, of this either being a good move to combat misinformation among the left, or condemned as censorship by the right.

However, something that doesn't really seem to come up in these conversations is how the majority of discourse in society, as well as the place most people get their news and information, is on the web, which is pretty much all run by private companies who can decide to limit or spread information selectively if they so choose. There was a recent whistleblower memo from facebook outlining how mid-level facebook employees descions or lacktherof can influence elections in small to mid sized countries.

What do you think we can do to address the danger allowing private companies to run such critical areas of our society without it totally falling into partsian spats where depending on who is getting targetted, it's either supported or condemned by one or the other side?