I know Marx and communism did not work before, but I think in the future you have the possibility of having total communism and equal access to everything for everybody.
All I care to know about him is the following:
Does he think people who haven't been injected should be denied healthcare or the ability to eat in a restaurant.
What should the penalties be -- if any -- if someone worked around those management systems the same way his platforms worked around copyright law? Should they be treated as heroes the way he expected to be, or techno-terrorists?
This is just such a ridiculous notion if you consider it for even one moment.
Even in the best technological scenario where you live in the world of fully-automated-luxury-communism, what does it actually mean for 'everyone' to have 'equal access to everything'?
Does everyone have their own private jet?
Does everyone have their own yacht?
Does everyone have a house as big and beautiful as they desire?
This is obviously impossible, because there simply isn't the means or resources to do it. Worse, even if there was, what was seen as a 'big' house would simply get bigger as humans inherently compete to one-up eachother.
A communist system HAS TO assign quotas to the amount of resources people are allowed to consume. But then what happens?
Then you have some genius scientist who can't do research because it'll exceed their quota. You have the very systems that provide resources hamstrung by the limits imposed on the people who run them.
So you have to make exceptions. And to that you need to more beureaucracy. And pretty soon you have class of individuals who not only have access to more than everyone else, but get to decide what everyone else has access to, and can even give themselves more. All you've done is create an even more rigid system with even less chance of social mobility.
You end up with governers and industry bosses living in mansions and penthouses while the proles live in pods and shacks. It's even WORSE than the system you tried to replace!
He almost certainly wants Star Trek "post-scarcity" which isn't really post-scarcity because it's not like everyone who wants to is able to fly around the quadrant in their own personal warp-capable starship or settle their own planet. Or have a house with a real view of the real Golden Gate Bridge, for that matter.
Show an 18th century peasant the tent cities in Seattle, San Francisco, or Portland and they'd think we were a "post-scarcity" society. Yet somehow we don't think we are. Funny how that works.
Another retard who doesn't understand the problem is authority itself. All earthly authority is inherently corrupt and only the smallest units of authority (family, church, community) can be purified in any meaningful sense.
Even if you don't agree with him in his political conclusions or his career choice, he makes some very good observations
Society is reflecting the internet
Centalization of the internet makes it a tool of global mass surveillance that is difficult to get around
Censorship and the erosion of rights through centralization is meant to concentrate power (specifically mentions manipulating search results)
People don't seem to care about the erosion of rights as much as they should, less they be labeled a 'conspiracy theorist'
Specifically talks about global unemployment and a mass reset (albeit through a socialist lens)
It is very insightful that he was calling things so bad 6 years ago, but compared to today there was the illusion the internet was still a fairly open place.
Of course this guy does not like society. He built an entire platform that is designed to steal copyrighted materials.
Without copyright, we wouldn't have such a plethora of inventions and works of art. To function with so much innovation, we must let its creators profit from it.
He is, by definition, a thief, and his opinion on society is to make one where everything can be stolen (which is basically what Marxism is, stealing property from its owners and redistributing it).
And you can't stop me from sharing your words or copying your pictures.
Making a copy is not theft. It's not stealing your property when you still have your property in your hands.
The best you have is rubbish rethoric designed to protect the propagandists, like "copyright infringement", and fuck that.
Now you can argue that profiting from others creativite work is a form of plagarism, and I would back you there, but that's not what we're talking about. A system that protects against plagarism everyone would support, but you're here talking shit because you're mad people aren't paying their tax to the indoctrinators for providing them with more agitprop, and fuck that twice.
Just hearing "stealing copyrighted materials" makes me puke. You've been brainwashed well by your handlers if you're spewing garbage like "copyrighted" with no sense of irony.
Without copyright, we wouldn't have such a plethora of inventions and works of art.
What a retarded idea. We managed well for the majority of recorded history without the concept of copyright. People don't stop inventing or writing because there's some holes in the paywall. Soulless, empty vessels work like that. Grifters work like that. And soulless grifters shouldn't be making art anyway, they're just adding noise to the point where today there's hardly any signal left.
Artists create for the sake of art and their communities and themselves. They create to share. What the hell else is the fucking point.
As an artist you live from patrons, grants, and sales - but there's no natural law that says police have to step up and the government has to step up to stop others from sharing your output so that you can scale up to the level of a billionare.
And to add to this, if someone wants to support your product or your work they will. And that's not even getting into the view of piracy as a service problem, which Gabe Newell spoke about back in 2011. (archive link once it gets archived)
“We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem,” he said. “If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable.”
. . .
Prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become [Steam’s] largest market in Europe,”
. . .
“Our success comes from making sure that both customers and partners (e.g. Activision, Take 2, Ubisoft…) feel like they get a lot of value from those services, and that they can trust us not to take advantage of the relationship that we have with them.”
I can't tell you how many times I've pirated something and then ended up buying a copy legitimately (and often gifting copies to friends!) IRL friends would all say the same.
Or how I wanted to see or read something and the only way to acquire a copy was through piracy.
Or how I had purchased something legitimately years and years ago but the only way to reacquire it without "piracy" was to purchase it 2nd or 3rd hand from God knows who for God knows how much. I highly doubt the creators saw money go into their pockets from those sales.
Piracy, torrenting, w/e you want to call it is used by people who probably never intend on paying a single dime for anything, but I generally think that at the end of the day creators benefit from "piracy."
For the longest time, I stopped pirating games. Once I got a Steam account, I think the only game I pirated was SWAT 4 which was literally impossible to buy until GOG started selling it digitally which resulted in me buying it instantly.
Than Epig Shame Whore came around and started turning PC games into fucking store exclusives.
Congrats on your personal experiences. Let me share mine.
Everyone I've known who pirates games has ceased paying for them altogether.
As far as I'm concerned, "I pay after I've stolen it" is the "my genetics made me fat" of piracy apologetics; it's true for a miniscule percentage of the population, but everyone acts like it's the norm.
I'm going to reply to the guy above here too because Win deleted my direct reply to him. (there's more than 5 replies) He said:
steal copyrighted materials
That doesn't make any sense. I'm for some basic copyright and patent stuff to stimulate innovation, but copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's usually a civil offense in free societies. It's like he was channeling some RIAA spokesman who said "you're stealing our profits!"
Now you could argue that if someone says "Look I'll make and distribute this game, but ONLY if you pay me. Please don't play it without paying me", then it's immoral to play the game without his permission, but that doesn't make it theft.
This kind of redefinition of common words for propaganda purposes is why I'm now an anti-vaxxer for some reason.
If copyright was limited to the original US term of 15 years, you'd see a lot less piracy... and a lot less pointless schlock, as you'd need to create things better than what's available for free in order to sell them and recoup your investment, much less turn a profit.
The perpetual (greater than a human lifetime) term of copyrights we have now is primarily designed to allow rightsholders (a subset of rent-seekers) to avoid competing with their own (far superior) back catalogues.
And you wouldn't have corporations or descendants keeping once-valuable IP around as zombies of their former greatness, allowing them to be used by SJWs as vehicles for social change. Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and Wheel of Time would already be public domain that anyone could do with as they wish, but nobody could claim ownership over. The most popular reimagining of each would rise to the top instead of the sorry excuses for fan-fiction we have today.
Thieves are not really socialists, they just steal. You have an easier time stealing in a capitalist society then a socialist one.
However Marxists are also thieves, they are the most evil and ill intent of thieves.
All I care to know about him is the following:
This is just such a ridiculous notion if you consider it for even one moment.
Even in the best technological scenario where you live in the world of fully-automated-luxury-communism, what does it actually mean for 'everyone' to have 'equal access to everything'?
Does everyone have their own private jet? Does everyone have their own yacht? Does everyone have a house as big and beautiful as they desire?
This is obviously impossible, because there simply isn't the means or resources to do it. Worse, even if there was, what was seen as a 'big' house would simply get bigger as humans inherently compete to one-up eachother.
A communist system HAS TO assign quotas to the amount of resources people are allowed to consume. But then what happens? Then you have some genius scientist who can't do research because it'll exceed their quota. You have the very systems that provide resources hamstrung by the limits imposed on the people who run them. So you have to make exceptions. And to that you need to more beureaucracy. And pretty soon you have class of individuals who not only have access to more than everyone else, but get to decide what everyone else has access to, and can even give themselves more. All you've done is create an even more rigid system with even less chance of social mobility.
You end up with governers and industry bosses living in mansions and penthouses while the proles live in pods and shacks. It's even WORSE than the system you tried to replace!
He almost certainly wants Star Trek "post-scarcity" which isn't really post-scarcity because it's not like everyone who wants to is able to fly around the quadrant in their own personal warp-capable starship or settle their own planet. Or have a house with a real view of the real Golden Gate Bridge, for that matter.
Show an 18th century peasant the tent cities in Seattle, San Francisco, or Portland and they'd think we were a "post-scarcity" society. Yet somehow we don't think we are. Funny how that works.
Another retard who doesn't understand the problem is authority itself. All earthly authority is inherently corrupt and only the smallest units of authority (family, church, community) can be purified in any meaningful sense.
Governance requires consent.
Archive link: https://archive.is/jwCmi
Even if you don't agree with him in his political conclusions or his career choice, he makes some very good observations
It is very insightful that he was calling things so bad 6 years ago, but compared to today there was the illusion the internet was still a fairly open place.
Fuck the thieving bitch. Thieves should be crucified and set on fire.
nevermind I got in to the fact that he is a socialist strange that he is anti-internet control but pro socialism
Of course this guy does not like society. He built an entire platform that is designed to steal copyrighted materials.
Without copyright, we wouldn't have such a plethora of inventions and works of art. To function with so much innovation, we must let its creators profit from it.
He is, by definition, a thief, and his opinion on society is to make one where everything can be stolen (which is basically what Marxism is, stealing property from its owners and redistributing it).
You can't own ideas.
And you can't stop me from sharing your words or copying your pictures.
Making a copy is not theft. It's not stealing your property when you still have your property in your hands.
The best you have is rubbish rethoric designed to protect the propagandists, like "copyright infringement", and fuck that.
Now you can argue that profiting from others creativite work is a form of plagarism, and I would back you there, but that's not what we're talking about. A system that protects against plagarism everyone would support, but you're here talking shit because you're mad people aren't paying their tax to the indoctrinators for providing them with more agitprop, and fuck that twice.
Just hearing "stealing copyrighted materials" makes me puke. You've been brainwashed well by your handlers if you're spewing garbage like "copyrighted" with no sense of irony.
What a retarded idea. We managed well for the majority of recorded history without the concept of copyright. People don't stop inventing or writing because there's some holes in the paywall. Soulless, empty vessels work like that. Grifters work like that. And soulless grifters shouldn't be making art anyway, they're just adding noise to the point where today there's hardly any signal left.
Artists create for the sake of art and their communities and themselves. They create to share. What the hell else is the fucking point.
As an artist you live from patrons, grants, and sales - but there's no natural law that says police have to step up and the government has to step up to stop others from sharing your output so that you can scale up to the level of a billionare.
And to add to this, if someone wants to support your product or your work they will. And that's not even getting into the view of piracy as a service problem, which Gabe Newell spoke about back in 2011. (archive link once it gets archived)
. . .
. . .
I can't tell you how many times I've pirated something and then ended up buying a copy legitimately (and often gifting copies to friends!) IRL friends would all say the same.
Or how I wanted to see or read something and the only way to acquire a copy was through piracy.
Or how I had purchased something legitimately years and years ago but the only way to reacquire it without "piracy" was to purchase it 2nd or 3rd hand from God knows who for God knows how much. I highly doubt the creators saw money go into their pockets from those sales.
Piracy, torrenting, w/e you want to call it is used by people who probably never intend on paying a single dime for anything, but I generally think that at the end of the day creators benefit from "piracy."
For the longest time, I stopped pirating games. Once I got a Steam account, I think the only game I pirated was SWAT 4 which was literally impossible to buy until GOG started selling it digitally which resulted in me buying it instantly.
Than Epig Shame Whore came around and started turning PC games into fucking store exclusives.
The industry can only blame itself.
Congrats on your personal experiences. Let me share mine.
Everyone I've known who pirates games has ceased paying for them altogether.
As far as I'm concerned, "I pay after I've stolen it" is the "my genetics made me fat" of piracy apologetics; it's true for a miniscule percentage of the population, but everyone acts like it's the norm.
I'm going to reply to the guy above here too because Win deleted my direct reply to him. (there's more than 5 replies) He said:
That doesn't make any sense. I'm for some basic copyright and patent stuff to stimulate innovation, but copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's usually a civil offense in free societies. It's like he was channeling some RIAA spokesman who said "you're stealing our profits!"
Now you could argue that if someone says "Look I'll make and distribute this game, but ONLY if you pay me. Please don't play it without paying me", then it's immoral to play the game without his permission, but that doesn't make it theft.
This kind of redefinition of common words for propaganda purposes is why I'm now an anti-vaxxer for some reason.
Maybe, but it also gives me a way to download games or movies without giving money to those that hate me.
Honestly, I did it a lot when I was broke and young, too - but I still knew it was wrong to do so.
Heaven forbid people have a way to send files to each other
If copyright was limited to the original US term of 15 years, you'd see a lot less piracy... and a lot less pointless schlock, as you'd need to create things better than what's available for free in order to sell them and recoup your investment, much less turn a profit.
The perpetual (greater than a human lifetime) term of copyrights we have now is primarily designed to allow rightsholders (a subset of rent-seekers) to avoid competing with their own (far superior) back catalogues.
And you wouldn't have corporations or descendants keeping once-valuable IP around as zombies of their former greatness, allowing them to be used by SJWs as vehicles for social change. Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and Wheel of Time would already be public domain that anyone could do with as they wish, but nobody could claim ownership over. The most popular reimagining of each would rise to the top instead of the sorry excuses for fan-fiction we have today.
Thieves are not really socialists, they just steal. You have an easier time stealing in a capitalist society then a socialist one. However Marxists are also thieves, they are the most evil and ill intent of thieves.
Archive.is that shit