I think the answer is probably more basic: the respondents who answered that way were tween and teenage boys. (I’d guess that was the main demographic of those spending significant time playing multiplayer phone games.)

Well, remember that it was only FCC policy since 2014, and ISP abuses were fairly subtle/non-obvious before that point. So I’m not sure they’ll immediately go whole hog - I suspect we’ll see a slow build up to the more egregious practices and/or adoption of sleazy shenanigans that aren’t obvious to customers (i.e.…

It’s kind of a low-priority worry for me, right now. I think it’ll take a while to have the same kind of effect a lot of other Trump admin actions are going to be having right away (e.g. media consolidation by billionaire Trump backers, tax bill, etc.).

Yeah, there is that, too. Though I wonder how big a change that will make, compared to everything else. The biggest things they’re doing now in terms of education seem to be pushing private religious schools at the expense of public schools and hurting the ability to do graduate work. The GOP has been actively hostile…

“Where are the genuine “party of Lincoln” republicans”

I think you’re right in that this is probably an analogous situation to the Blizzard cases, which were all, I believe, about bots in various games. Blizzard tried to turn EULA-violations into copyright cases, and were totally legally bizarre. Somehow they had one initial judgement in their favor, but it mostly was…

“LP style content is not protected under fair use.”

They seem to be throwing everything they can think of at him, hoping something sticks. Legally, it all seems there more for deterrent effect than because they have a solid legal argument for any of it. It’s unclear exactly how using a hack is a “derivative work” - it seems like their argument is that by streaming a…

I’m guessing that the information given in this case amounts to a click-through on a TOS boilerplate, and if the lawsuit is based on violations of that TOS... well, good luck to the company, they’re going to need it. But I suspect they’re not so much hoping to win this case (because the average jury would respond to…

I wouldn’t want to be the lawyer trying to base a lawsuit on a click-through TOS on a video game, “signed” by a child.

I’m not saying that’s reasonable. I’m saying that treating a game TOS, agreed to by a child, like a legally binding contract worthy of a lawsuit is fucking insane.

I’m just saying - they seem to be happy about the idea of being responsible for transactions they had nothing to do with.

“Your kid trashes a neighbor’s car, you get sued.”

“How would you propose they do that? Require a copy of ID along with a live cam of the user before accepting any online transaction?”

“It’s not the 14 year old they are suing it’s the lying 14 year old they are suing whom, when they agreed to the terms, stated they were legal age”

I dunno, all I can think of, in terms of make-up that might make the workplace hostile, is: