Yes, I told someone to inform themselves before making assumptions. Which, I think, is a reasonable expectation.

The rest of the comment was pointing out how archive.org acts like any other public library and therefore should not be treated differently. This does not carry hostility against the person I am replying to.

Please inform yourself. In these comments and on their website, it is covered that they do not provide books freely. Just like any other library books can be borrowed exactly as many times as they own a copy.

Just like any other library they sometimes provide a download for Adobe Digital Edition, which manages your lends on books. But as your friend with DRM stripping tools for sure can confirm: DRM is just an annoyance for legitimate customers, it forces legitimate users to use specific applications, while pirates get the freedom to choose how they interact with the not any more protected media. But this is a discussion for another thread as archive.org treats copyrighted books just like any other library.

Please go to archive.org > Books > Books to Borrow

Select any book which strikes your fancy. You will see a reading excerpt, like flicking through pages in a library. if you have a free account, you can lend it for 1h at a time.

Or look at this video https://dn720701.ca.archive.org/0/items/openlibrary-tour-2020/openlibrary.mp4

That means that if the Internet Archive and its partner libraries have only one copy of a book, then only one patron can borrow it at a time, just like other library lending.

Lending and renting stuff is not piracy! Many corporate suits want people to start believing this. but i remember going to the library and renting books, movies and games. it was not piracy back then, and it wont be now.

looks like itch.io is down too. might be a coincidence or someone trying to show off…

@[email protected] already mentioned one. And it does not really matter what the can do specifically to you. It matters what they can do and that you have no control. If you want to know what people can do with just your username look at this project: https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock. Now imagine what someone with more data can do.

Yes but No. For most people writing this kind of mail should not be a problem. However, for many different reasons it can become difficult to write such things: This mail is some kind of formal letter and alters a contract. Let’s imagine someone with a learning disability, they may be able to sign up for a online service, as they have done it many times. Writing a formal letter they may not have done many times and they cannot map past experiences the same way as a neurotypical person.

Depending on the local law this may be a reason why forced arbitration has to be opt-in: Typically the law should protect the weaker party. As the barrier for writing this letter is higher than the sign-up process, there is an argument that the chosen opt-out process of discord is targeted against some of their weakest customers.

Good question, but: Why would Discord ever expect to be in a lawsuit or arbitration with you? Most people, like you, use it to chat with people they barely know and give them no money. Still discord think it is necessary to take away legal rights from all their users.

Small businesses can individually refuse to do business with the big shopping mall -> add threads to the block list (‘defederate’ them)

The big shopping mall is not allowed to put their building at the public square -> threads is not allowed to use ActivityPub

The first statement is totally ok and a lot of instances do this. However, similar like shopping malls it can pose a challenge for small businesses to stay competitive, while categorically refusing business with the big actor. The second statement would require the towns construction committee to not give the shopping mall a license to build. However, this construction committee is a centralised power and not in the design of ActivityPub.

I do not like threads and see them as a potential threat to what we have here. Exactly because it could become harder to stay competitive while refusing them. But i don’t see much that we can actively do.

“We can’t federate” is not really an option… Sure, every instance can add threads to the blocked list. But to keep big corporations out of ‘our public square’ ActivityPub would have to be twisted into a grotesque version of itself.

You have to ignore their reasonable arguments, because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.

This is logically flawed and benefits an ‘us against them’ mentality. If there actually are reasonable and logical arguments, the chances are high there are reasonable and lovely people listening to those arguments. If we shut down those reasonable arguments, because we suspect bad hidden intentions. That just gives opportunity to the people with bad intentions to radicalise reasonable lovely people.

If Anna subscribes to X, which is a reasonable idea, and Ben publicly argues for X - Anna might support Ben. However, Ben turns out to be an asshole. Since Clara also argues X, Anna is very likely to support Clara instead of Ben.

Let’s assume Clara doesn’t exist: People disagree with X because X is argued by the asshole Ben. Anna is still a lovely person and believes in X, because the idea makes sense and doesn’t hurt anyone. But Ben’s rhetoric became so much easier: “THEY don’t want US to have X”, “I am the only person fighting for X” and all that propaganda bullshit. It won’t work on everybody, but Ben likely gains support he would not have gained in the previous scenario.