I have no idea how accurate this info on FindLaw.com is, but according to it, you don’t need a lawyer in small claims court (in the US). And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_claims_court there are many other countries with similar small claim courts: “Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States”. I know the list of countries is not even close to covering a large amount of Steam users, but I suspect that us Europeans are covered in other ways, so there’s that.

The Wikipedia page also mentions the lawyer thing, by the way:

A usual guiding principle in these courts is that individuals ought to be able to conduct their own cases and represent themselves without a lawyer. Rules are relaxed but still apply to some degree. In some jurisdictions, corporations must still be represented by a lawyer in small-claims court.

And I don’t think you need to sue Valve in the US. I think they’re required to have legal representation in the countries in which they operate, which should enable you to sue them “locally” in many cases. Again, not an expert, so I’m making quite a few assumptions here.

Yeah, you’re right. Sorry. I’ve edited my comment to reflect that. I didn’t read OP’s image but rather the news post by Valve on Steam, but missed the part that said: “the updated SSA now provides that any disputes are to go forward in court instead of arbitration”.

it’s certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.

But doesn’t the change open up for litigation in small claims court? (Again, I’m in no way knowledgeable in US law, so I’m just asking.)

If, for example, I want to return a game in accordance with the rules and they won’t let me, I’m not gonna lawyer up and sue them from the other side of the Atlantic.

While supposedly being a lot cheaper than litigation, arbitration isn’t free either. Besides, arbitration makes it near-impossible to appeal a decision, and the outcome won’t set binding legal precedent. Furthermore, arbitration often comes with a class action waiver. Valve also removed that from the SSA.

I’m far from an expert in law, especially US law, but as I understand it, arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it’s just not a requirement anymore [edit: nevermind, I didn’t understand it]. I’m sure they’re making this move because it somehow benefits them, but it still seems to me that consumers are getting more options [edit: they’re not] which is usually a good thing.

I think they vastly underestimate how many things Meta tracks besides ad tracking. They’re likely tracking how long you look at a given post in your feed and will use that to rank similar posts higher. They know your location, what wifi network you’re on and will use that to make assumptions based on others on the same network and/or in the same location. They know what times you’re browsing at and can correlate that with what’s trending in the area at those times, etc.

I have no doubt that their algorithm is biased towards all that crap, but these kinds of investigations need to be more informed in order for them to be useful.

Yup. I remember it from when Atlanta hosted the Olympic games some time in the '90s. Despicable.

Didn’t something similar happen in Turkey with Erdogan a few years back? Pretty sure he was accused of being behind it himself too; don’t know what the final verdict was though.

I think it’s a pretty common accusation, just like when a politician is attacked, someone will invariably suggest that they staged it in order to get more support.

I don’t think anyone should fear for their lives because of their opinions regardless of how stupid they are.

Edit: It’s pretty fucked up that this is somehow controversial…

That makes sense, thanks. I wasn’t sure whether they included animals in the goal.

After reading the article, I’m confused about how it works. Guinea worms are parasites that you get infected with from bad water sources. Unless you eradicate the source (e.g. the worms themselves), can you really say that you’ve eradicated the disease? Even if we go a decade without any human contracting it, it’s no harder for someone to contract it by drinking contaminated water than it is today. It’s not like a viral disease, that simply stops existing if infection numbers drop to 0 for a while.

That being said, it’s great that numbers are as low as they are. Education and better water infrastructure is helping.

Did you read the article? She’s not saying that she didn’t know that measles are dangerous, she’s saying that she thinks people would vaccinate more and sooner if they knew the potential delayed effects of measles. Her son died 4 years after catching it and he wasn’t vaccinated at 2 because he was on a delayed vaccination program (it doesn’t say why). It’s a super tragic story really and it doesn’t seem like she’s anti-vax or anything like it, quite the opposite.

You’re right. The consequences should be more akin to the consequences Saudi Arabia felt for murdering Khashoggi—oh, wait…

Literally no one but you has used the word “federated” in his thread of comments… You responded to the original comment about git being decentralized by saying “it’s still 1 centralized server that has the code”. I corrected you, because that’s not how git works, and now I’m not sure what the fuck you’re on about…

Edit: Screenshot, in case you forget.

You’d still have a complete copy of the current HEAD, you’d just be missing a bunch of history depending on the depth at which you cloned.

It’s really not. In your example, the meme would be decentralized — not “the internet”. Also, I think you’re confusing “git” with services offering “git and more” such as GitHub, GitLab, etc.

No, that’s not quite how git works. Everyone who’s cloned the repo has a complete copy of the code — at least at the time they cloned/checked it out. If GitHub, Gitlab, BitBucket or whatever goes away, you can keep working without it, provided that people know how to use a remote from another machine. Git really is decentralized even if people tend to use it in a centralized fashion.

Edit: Spelling.

Yes, either that or “I haven’t thought this through well enough that I can explain it in writing, so please let me fumble through an oral explanation and—in all likelihood—waste your time”.

Or, “I’m dyslectic and would prefer to talk rather than write”, which is fair enough, I think.

Ikr? That’s honestly the most offensive thing about it.

It’s voluntarily broadcasting it, because YOU told it to broadcast it.

Yes, and that’s not the issue as I’ve been saying the entire time. The issue is that you have a right to know where it’s broadcast — both in the past and in the present. That’s what I’ve been saying the entire time. And the privacy policy needs to specify exactly what data is sent and where to. The privacy policy you cited did neither, it just stated that it was sent out.

I am interested in discussion but I prefer to discuss things based on facts rather than feelings.

Email isn’t exempt from the GDPR. If an email provider is doing anything with your email except for delivering it to the intended recipient, then you have a right to know under the GDPR. Plenty of hefty fines have been handed out over failing to sufficiently inform about such things: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ (look for e.g. art. 12 violations). Even something as simple as SMTP logs contain PII according to the GDPR and should be handled as such.

You voluntarily sending an email, with whatever content you decide to put there, to a recipient of your choosing, is in absolutely no way the same as clicking a vote button and involuntarily having your vote and username broadcast to whoever cares to listen without your prior knowledge and consent. Yes, emails travel through a bunch of MTAs underway — that’s a prerequisite for email to work. And no, broadcasting Lemmy votes along with usernames is in no way a prerequisite for voting to work.

It doesn’t matter if you post your +1 via lemmy or via email.

It absolutely does. When sending an email, you fill in the recipient and decide where your data goes, but when you press ‘upvote’ on Lemmy, you don’t have a say in who that information is broadcast to — especially not in its current form. And it’s on whoever runs the Lemmy server to comply with the GDPR and make data processors known. It really doesn’t matter how similar you think it is to email, the GDPR treats it differently and that’s the reality you have to accept.

Your argument could easily be extended to every piece of information floating across the internet. No one is forcing anyone to upload an image to Facebook, but Meta is still responsible for documenting who handles the image and for what purposes, they can’t just say, “you uploaded it, we let 3rd parties have their way with it”.

And I’ve also worked with the GDPR, both as a developer implementing systems to accommodate requests for data insight and erasure, and implementing controls to make sure data was being handled correctly and e.g. not stored for longer than allowed, and I’ve worked with it from a security perspective in order to protect the personal data of about a couple of million people, and finally I’ve worked with it in management to implement safe and GDPR compliant data handling strategies in a couple of companies.