Gross, I don’t want either the Japanese one or this. I’m just not interested in either. Give me ancient Rome, Mesopotamia, The Mayans, Incans, Aztecs, something. 

It’s not stupid though. The fact that you put in the work to beat a game with no safety net is an essential core part of the experience. Adding in a safety net kills a fundamental part of what these games are.

The thing is—IT is draconian. Due to the site being financially responsible for any violations, any new startup needs to have a review process in place by their 3rd year (Its part of the law’s exceptions, under 10mil and 3 years) which means they either need to be reviewing literally video that gets uploaded, or pay a…

Well said. It’s a completely regressive regulation that’s ignorant of the harm overzealous copy protections have inflicted on other industries. It’s gotten to the point in film where you have to be careful what FURNITURE you stick in a shot because you might owe the creator royalties.

Well keep your children off the internet. Problem solved.

None of what you just said made any sense, or fit into the analogy at all. If my landlord does a background check on me, finds out I’m a lowlife, rents an apartment anyway, and later on I’m proven to be a thief, the landlord isn’t going to be fined by the city for allowing a lowlife—someone with, say, an abnormally…

It’s impractical for any online platform to be liable for the content they host, except in the case the platform doesn’t take down content when the copyright hoster sues the person who posted infringing content. Otherwise Web 2.0 would cease to exist and the Internet would turn into cable TV.

Would you have said it’s Barnes and Nobel’s responsibility if they sold a book published by Random House that was 50% copyright infringing?

But it isn’t draconian. It forces sites that have made millions from not moderating stolen content to now actually moderate.

Making online businesses responsible for their users isn’t even remotely in the same ballpark as any similar law applying to physical businesses. The level of user interactivity and the sheer number of users are exponentially higher.

But it isn’t draconian.

I’m normally a fairly staunch defender of copyright; I make part of my living through my own copyrighted materials, and will call my lawyer with the quickness to protect my IP from infringement (because failure to protect copyright can weaken a claim to the same).

That said, even I feel like there has to be room for…

Not really a fan of the decision or the general idea of corporations policing my morality for me. I probably would never have heard of this game if not for the complaints and, even so, would not have bought it had I chance. I simply wouldn’t have engaged and gone on with my life. That is pretty much how it is supposed…

I'm pretty sure most people don't give a shit if a girl is carrying or hell, on the team. It's really just a few hundred children making a lot of noise. 

This is the stupidest god damned controversy ever. In a game where you’re traveling back in time in the mind of an ancestor, people are upset that that ancestor had to procreate to continue the bloodline that allows the game’s plot to happen at all? If you’re offended by this shit, you’re a dork and need to get a life.

Oh no, youtube is promoting actual talented charismatic people like Jack Black, Will Smith, and The Rock. Whatever will I do without my steady supply of reaction videos and screaming “let’s play”-ers screaming rape jokes in my ear.

All they need is an option to mute people. I've never reported anyone, but I've muted many little kids that drop racial slurs. 

Camping is part of life online and not something to report people for. It's a legitimate strategy. 

You must be a hoot at parties.

Troll alert! Ding, ding, ding. He or she has been all over the sites. Tomato Face lives.