> lot of creators get their revenue through donation, either one time or recurring
I keep hearing this, but I have yet to see one person truly live off of donations. Patreon is backed by expecting services in return, so most Patreons are definitely not donations.
It is probably possible, but only for people making funds that are already at points many would call "wealthy".
>we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating ressource to enforce fake scarcity.
I'm all for UBI. But I don't even see that in much talks in the US, just a few tests by private companies (how very American). Might as well have short term ways to survive while just blueskying entire economic models.
> other sources of revenue exist
> revenue through donation
So what? Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that and it would still generally result in significantly lower revenue.
> On another level, we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating
And fund it how exactly? Even if that were sustainable why do you think that content creators should be fully content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while people working in most other industries should be able to money the same way they previously did?
IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have been one of the primaries force behind human progress over that last 300+ years.
> Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that
That's not a difference, PR/Marketing is already used to profit over IP work.
> Even if that were sustainable why do you think that content creators should be fully content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while people working in most other industries should be able to money the same way they previously did?
This is assuming creators are fully content on how stuff work now, and I'm betting that's not the case for the vast majority, most of them cannot make end meets with the current system, regardless of how hard they work on their book/song/game/etc, and they have to have a side job just to put food on the table.
> IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have been one of the primaries force behind human progress over that last 300+ years.
That's a bold claim. Most of, if not all, human progress on this period is directly attributable to the use of fossil fuel, from the steam engine to the modern use of it, and how it empowered us to do so much more with less human-hour.
Indeed, people didn't invent the telephone, television, or typewriter because they thought "wow this would be a great payout for the next 20-80 years for me and my subsequent heirs, let me invent something useful", they did it because they needed a telephone, television, or typewriter, and one didn't exist yet.
Unless this is sarcasm, you base these claim on what exactly? Inventors in the late 1800s were often notoriously litigious and highly motivated by the fact that they could profit from their inventions through patents.
The alternative option would have meant that individuals would have had to spend significant amounts of time and resources to "invent" new products, and the only ones to profit would be the companies that had the capacity to manufacture them (while keeping all of the profits for themselves). Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation?
> they did it because they needed a telephone,
There is a pretty extensive section named "The race to the patent office" on Graham Bell's Wikipedia page.
Do you think Watt would have successful at building his steam engine had there been no patents that allowed him to attract investors? Or he would have just spent all of his live working as an engineer or a surveyor because he couldn't have afford the significant capital required to develop the engine?
> Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation?
people invent stuff and put it out in the public domain every day, not everyone is a robber baron. look at youtube or hackaday one day, maybe you'll learn something.
The work necessary to properly answer this question is a team of 100+ domain experts working for at least 5 years. There's no way you're getting a good answer to this question in a comment thread on a website for programmers. Why even ask that question - what value do you expect out of the responses?
Why even make that argument in the first place then? It's the equivalent (following your logic) of saying that "it would be nice if we were living in an utopian society with no material scarcity" which doesn't mean much unless you can at least provide some explanation of how we should get there.
> The work necessary to properly answer this question is a team of 100+ domain experts working for at least 5 years.
I don't think we live in a video game where you can just spend "research points" to develop new economic systems that somehow magically improve economic productivity and solve complex socio-economical problems?
> Why even make that argument in the first place then?
Making an argument doesn't require to describe every step to it, if I told you could use your GPS to navigate to work, you're not gonna ask me how to launch a satellite in space.
> It's the equivalent (following your logic) of saying that "it would be nice if we were living in an utopian society with no material scarcity"
Copyright have nothing to do with material scarcity, neither does UBI, that is about money, a man made social construct, not a material thing.
exactly as you say, an argument for UBI doesn't necessarily need to mean retreading the whole history of UBI designs and legislatures, it just means someone would like to UBI exist without necessarily having to be an expert on how to implement it. I wanted to eat some sushi today and I didn't start questioning myself "well how would you evolve sushi rice starting with a wild rice cultivar", i just went to the store and bought it and now i'm fine. there are experts for that sort of thing and I leave it up to them. I guess if someone doesn't realize there are experts for topics then that betrays they think they are an expert with everything.
> just means someone would like to UBI exist without necessarily having to be an expert on how to implement
I would like eco-friendly flying cars to exist so that I could avoid traffic in the morning, I think that would solve all the mass transit and infrastructure problems in major cities.
No clue how to build one but I'm sure that 500 experts should be able to accomplish it if they really tried it. Until they do that nobody is allowed to question the validity of this universal solution to all transportation related problems that humanity is facing.
no, i can advocate for having public rail without knowing how to lay track, how to fund it, or how to run the schedules. i can also advocate for photovoltaics and heat pumps getting funded, and i can advocate for health care reform without even knowing where that reform would go, just by knowing that the current state of the health care system is bad. there's no burden of proof when stating a preference.
If you are advocating for a position, with no idea of how to implement that position is implemented then you are just increasing the noise.
It is all fine and well to say "We should have public rail" but with out any idea of how it should be implemented and what it will take to get there, the idea falls flat on it's face. You have to be able to support it with funding increases and possibly eminent domain.
If you advocate for healthcare reform, great! So do I! And since you have no preference about how and what shape the reforms should take, you agree with me that we should abolish all health insurance companies! That would definitely reform the system but you might not like the outcome.
A large number of our current issues come from law and policy that was passed to address issues of the day with no understanding of how or why things were happening. Let's not continue that trend.
That's an absurd statement, it's the same with most program, you make a copy of the data from a CD/Flash to the host machine storage, then make another copy to the RAM for execution.
Are you arguing that installing a software is akin to making an illegal copy ?
A proprietary cart has a license that doesn’t include any provisions for installation. Thus, it is only authorized to be executed directly from the cart. So in the specific case I’m talking about, as opposed to your premature extrapolation, yes. Copying the data from a cart to another system that isn’t directly executing the data from that cart is an illegal act.
> A proprietary cart has a license that doesn’t include any provisions for installation. Thus, it is only authorized to be executed directly from the cart. So in the specific case I’m talking about, as opposed to your premature extrapolation, yes.
No, the wishes of Nintendo are not law.
> Copying the data from a cart to another system that isn’t directly executing the data from that cart is an illegal act.
Not it isn't, it's explicitly stated that making a copy to run the program is not a infringement[1]
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
That’s all well and good if you’re the owner. But you’re not the owner of a computer program that is merely licensed to you for your use. Every game comes with an End User License Agreement that explicitly unambiguously says you don’t own it. [1][2]
Also, executing a copy of a program is violating the “for archival purposes only” provision. Once it’s being executed it’s no longer archival, it’s executive.
> But you’re not the owner of a computer program that is merely licensed to you for your use.
For copyright purpose, you're still the owner of the _copy_, independently of what Nintendo say, you bought the cartridge, you're the owner of it (but not the licence right on the distribution of the game).
> Also, executing a copy of a program is violating the “for archival purposes only” provision. Once it’s being executed it’s no longer archival, it’s executive.
It is not, it's covered by the section I'm quoting.
Where did purchasers of physical copies have a chance to read that license and did the store clerk require their signature to prove that they agreed to such an EULA?
The server is all-seeing, if there is no way for the server to discriminate cheater from other player, then no player can possibly know there a cheater on the server, thus cannot complain about cheating is either irrational or the server-side detection is severely flawed.
> The server is all-seeing, if there is no way for the server to discriminate cheater from other player, then no player can possibly know there a cheater on the server, thus cannot complain about cheating is either irrational or the server-side detection is severely flawed.
It's impossible to tell in-game if a baseball player is using steroids, yet there's a laundry list of banned substances and players who got banned for taking them because the MLB believes it gives them an unfair advantage. It's called competitive integrity.
Since it sounds like you don't play games, at least not competitively, I'll clarify that "cheating" in this case isn't the obvious stuff like "my gun does 100x damage" or "I move around at 100mph" or "I'm using custom player models with big spikes so I know everyone's location" that you would've seen on public Counter-Strike 1.6 servers in 2002. Cheating is aim assistance that nudges your cursor to compensate for spray patterns in CS, it's automatic DPs and throw breaks in Street Fighter 6 that are just at the threshold of human reaction timing, it's firing off skillshots in League of Legends with an overlay that says if it's going to kill the enemy player or not. All of this stuff is doable by a sufficiently skilled/lucky human, but not with the level of consistency you get from cheating.
> It's impossible to tell in-game if a baseball player is using steroids, yet there's a laundry list of banned substances and players who got banned for taking them because the MLB believes it gives them an unfair advantage. It's called competitive integrity.
This is relative to meat-space, not videogame, but we could go there and say caffeine or Adderall use is cheating, thus making anti-cheat a little more invasive…
And there another difference, you're referring to professional sport. I have no problem with invasive anti-cheat for professional gamer, even better it the gaming device is provided by tournament organization.
But we're talking about anti-cheat used for all players, akin to asking people playing catch in their garden or playing baseball for fun an the local park to take a blood sample for drug test.
> All of this stuff is doable by a sufficiently skilled/lucky human, but not with the level of consistency you get from cheating.
That's the point, there no difference for the other players between playing against a cheater and playing against a better player. Any ELO-based matchmaking will solve this, cheater will end-up playing against each-other or against very skilled player.
You could argue that they could create new account or purposely cripple their ELO ratting, but this is the exact same problem as smurfing.
Many games have ranked ladders now which are taken fairly seriously. Success at high levels of ladder player often translates into career opportunities, especially in League of Legends.
> Any ELO-based matchmaking will solve this, cheater will end-up playing against each-other or against very skilled player.
Well, first, you're wrong, because cheating only makes them good at one part of the game, not every part of the game. e.g. in League of Legends, a scripting Xerath or Karthus who hits every skillshot is going to win laning phase hard. However, scripting isn't going to help if they have bad macro and end up caught out in the middle of the game, causing their team to lose. Most cheaters don't end up at the top of the ladder, they end up firmly in the upper-middle.
Secondly, you're basically saying "cheating is OK because they'll end up at the top of the ladder." You don't realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Third, ranked and competition aside, playing against someone who's cheating isn't fun, even if you end up winning because they make mistakes that their cheats can't help them with.
You don't play competitive games, that's fine, but a lot of people do and they demand more competitive integrity than casual players.
> You don't play competitive games, that's fine, but a lot of people do and they demand more competitive integrity than casual players.
Little difference : I don't play competitive game with completes strangers on company run servers.
I've played competitively on community based server, with people being screened by other players and the community able to regulate itself (ban or unban players).
The problem space is vastly different, you don't need intrusive ring 0 anti-cheat for this.
The whole kernel-level anticheat stuff is a poor solution to a self-made problem by the developer : they wanted to be the one in charge of the game and servers, so they needed to slash human moderation need. They also wanted to create a unique pool of player and didn't want the community to split between itself and play how they want.
> Little difference : I don't play competitive game with completes strangers on company run servers.
People don't consider playing around with your friends to be competitive. You don't get to choose who else is competing in the game or what strategies they use. This is just an area that you are clearly not familiar with.
> The whole kernel-level anticheat stuff is a poor solution to a self-made problem by the developer : they wanted to be the one in charge of the game and servers, so they needed to slash human moderation need. They also wanted to create a unique pool of player and didn't want the community to split between itself and play how they want.
This wasn't self-made by the developer, it was demanded by the players. Competitive games have almost exclusively moved to online, skill-based matchmaking with a ladder system because that's what players want.
> People don't consider playing around with your friends to be competitive.
I didn't say friends. Please don't modify my argument to refute it.
> You don't get to choose who else is competing in the game or what strategies they use.
I, as a single player, no, but us, as a community, yes, and it's the same for any game or sport, different group run different tournament with different rules about who play and how.
> This is just an area that you are clearly not familiar with.
Please refrain to use ad hominem, especially when you have no idea who you are talking with.
> This wasn't self-made by the developer, it was demanded by the players.
I don't know any players who asked for the disappearance of community run server or human moderation, neither that wanted do lose agency on the way they play.
I don't they these players doesn't exist, but I don't make gross generality about players.
> Competitive games have almost exclusively moved to online, skill-based matchmaking with a ladder system because that's what players want.
They're not a hive mind, lots of them didn't or doesn't like matchmaking in any form, and even for the ones that wanted it, that doesn't mean developers have to remove other mean of play, like server browser and private server.
> Let me tell you a secret: it's because the gamers are demanding that.
Citation needed.
Whose these gamers ? I surely didn't ask for this neither any of the gamers I know, nor seen any demand about that in gaming forums.
> The game companies couldn't care less if there are cheaters in the game, but it's the players which put huge pressure on the game companies to detect and ban cheaters.
The jump from this to "requiring TPM" is quite a long one.
Cheating in online games (especially ones that are free) is so absurdly rampant and disruptive that you can sell gamers just about anything if it can meaningfully deter cheaters. Every now and then a Youtuber will say “kernel level anti-cheat is bad for [reasons]” and gamers will pretend to care about it until the video leaves the “For You” page.
I personally stopped playing CS because my friends started using an alt-launcher to avoid cheaters, which added a whole layer of complication that made the game undesirable. Ban waves aren't perfect but in my limited experience, cheaters weren't that rampant, in others experience it became intolerable.
I haven’t played valorant, so I don’t know about them, but what I can say is that definitely other anti-cheats are highly ineffective (VAC being one that is highly ineffective), with blatant cheaters going years without ever being caught.
Hell, blatant cheaters literally stream themselves cheating and their own communities do not recognize the cheating till the stream makes a mistake and selects the wrong scene. This also means that VAC methods of sending footage to random players is ineffective, as some streamers who are very obviously actually cheating do so in front of tens of thousands of people, and those people do not recognize the obvious cheating happening.
We also know game companies don’t care about cheating, as activision admitted in their lawsuit that they leave cheaters on a safe list so long as the cheaters have any semblance of an audience streaming.
It really doesn’t even take that many viewers. Zemie, for example, is a straight up cheater that runs a button activated aimbot and wall hacks. He only averages a couple thousand viewers and is safe listed by a number of game companies.
That's not the gamers asking, though. In this instance they're being taken advantage of because they have maligned priorities, and being sold an over-the-top solution they don't need. You can still detect process injection, memory injection, sketchy inputs, HID fuckery, DRM cracking, host emulation and input macros without ever going kernel-level.
Truth be told, if the exploiter-class of your game would even consider a kernel-level exploit, your game is fucked from the start. Seriously, go Google "valorant cheating tool" and your results page will get flooded with options. You cannot pretend like it's entirely the audience's fault when there are axiomatically better ways to do anticheat that developers actively ignore.
Go on steam and look at the recent reviews for older but still popular fps games. Gamers complain about cheaters constantly and will negatively review games cause of it
You're being disingenuous here, or just missing the point. The point being made was the gamers are demanding game developers stop cheaters... and that secure boot (and related ways to lock down the computer) is one of the primary tools they know to use to do that.
> The point being made was the gamers are demanding game developers stop cheaters... and that secure boot (and related ways to lock down the computer) is one of the primary tools they know to use to do that.
That's akin to saying that, as people want security on the street, mandatory strip search as soon as your exit your home is fair game.
Asking for a result doesn't give a blank-check for all the measures taken toward this result.
I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the primary reasons they're doing it. And "strip searches on the street" may not happen, but "Stop and Frisk" certainly is/was. And it was very much done because people were complaining about crime and safety. And it was done regardless of whether or not it was right, or effective, or even legal.
You cannot "prevent" cheating, you can at best mitigate it, it's a balance.
There plenty of way to mitigate cheating in game, but the game industry is focusing on the ones where they don't bear the cost and only the customer will (and this view is in part due to the model of F2P games, where banning cheater is useless as it doesn't cost them anything to create a new account).
Letting game developer having complete control and spying on the device playing the game is fine in a physical tournament were they provide the device, but it's insanity when it's the user own device in its home.
> There is no technical way to prevent cheating in advance without secure boot.
I'm not really sure I buy this. I can't really give a way that can guarantee no cheating but I know for example games like Genshin Impact run almost all the code (dmg calculation etc) server-side. Perhaps something that's an extension of Geforce Now might be the best "anti-cheat" technically speaking.
To run anti-cheat in that way, you need all game mechanics to be run server-side, and you need to not let the client ever know about something the player should not know - e.g. in a first-person shooter you need to run visibility and occlusion on the server too! Otherwise the cheating will take the form of seeing through walls and the like. This is going to boost the cost of the servers and probably any game subscription, and might lead to bandwidth or latency problems for players - just to avoid running any calculation that is relevant to game balance on player hardware.
Well yeah, that's the correct way to run a server, don't send information you don't want the user to get.
But as you are pointing out, forcing client-side intrusive anti-cheat is cheaper, thus this as nothing to do about preventing cheating, but about reducing cost.
It's not just about cost. Theoretically yes, you shouldn't send information that you don't want users to get and abuse. However, in the context of games, this is not always possible because most games are realtime and need to tolerate network latency. There is no perfect solution - there will always be tradeoffs.
Ideally player A shouldn't be networked player B if there is a wall between them but what happens when they're at the edge of the wall? You don't want them to pop in so you need some tolerance. But having that tolerance would also allow cheaters to see players through walls near edges. Or your game design might require you to hear sounds on the other side of the wall (footsteps, gunshots, etc.) which allows cheats to infer what what may be behind the wall better than a person would.
> Or your game design might require you to hear sounds on the other side of the wall (footsteps, gunshots, etc.) which allows cheats to infer what what may be behind the wall better than a person would.
Yes, and you cannot prevent this except in in-person tournament.
Any output send toward the player, even a faint audio queue could be analyzed, and use to trigger an action or display an overlay to the screen, and no amount of kernel-level stuff will prevent that, as you can do this outside of the computer running the game.
The end state of your argument is the game runs entirely on hosted hardware and you pay for a license to stream the final rendered output to your monitor. This is already happening. Soon games won’t be able to be “bought” at all, you’ll just pay the server a number of dollars per hour for the privilege of them letting you use their hardware.
If all surfaces are fully opaque, maybe. The second particle effects and volumetric effects and all sorts of advanced techniques play a role in actual gameplay, no. And that’s only for this one type of cheating.
Back in my day we all played on private, community ran servers where you could easily vote to kick/ban folks, the server owner was your buddy, or you played with people you trust.
Now everything is matchmaking, private servers, live service and that sense of community is gone.
It's very hard to gather full teams (usually 10 persons) in a small communities. Public matchmaking gives an opportunity to start a game in a minute from clicking "play", regardless of how many people you have at hand right now.
Small communities still exist, it's just that vacant places are now filled with strangers.
lot of thing happened, 6th gen consoles started a new way of using online games (no keyboard, no third party chat/vocal, no group chat out of game, no private server), then the industry pivoted away from private server to have more control on their games, then the whole F2P economy then GaaS took any agency out of players hands.
The goalpost just needs to be moved further than is economically interesting for cheaters in general to reach.
Perhaps secure boot by itself isn't enough, but I would imagine it would be a relatively large bump, when combined with a kernel-level anti-cheat. I presume such anti-cheats would e.g. disable the debugger access of game memory or otherwise debugging it, accessing the screen contents of the game or sending it artificial inputs.
What vectors remain? I guess at least finding bugs in the game, network traffic analysis, attempting MitM, capturing or even modifying actual data in the DRAM chips, using USB devices controlled by an external device that sees the game via a camera or HDMI capture.. All these can be plugged or require big efforts to make use of.
>Perhaps secure boot by itself isn't enough, but I would imagine it would be a relatively large bump, when combined with a kernel-level anti-cheat
VALORANT also adds TPM to the mix alongside SB and a kernel AC and yet is still trivially easy to cheat in as long as you have a driver you can use. Granted, it needs to be signed (=financially unreachable by a big part of the community), but if stubborn enough...
The real solution is letting players host their own servers and build their own communities of players they trust, but corps don't like giving that kind of freedom to users
There was a ruling in Europe (UFC against Valve [1]) citing that, as neither e-book nor video-game deteriorate with use, the customer doesn't have a right to sell it on the second hand market as it would affect the copyright holder interest :
> To entrench its position, the CJEU first mentioned that dematerialized digital copies, unlike books on a material medium, do not deteriorate with use and are perfect substitutes for new copies.
> Furthermore, the CJEU added to its reasoning that exchanging such copies requires neither additional effort nor additional cost. A parallel second-hand market would likely affect the interest of the copyright holder – contrary to the objective of the directive and the intention of the EU legislator.
> There is no requirement of de-anonymization. […] They can do this by hiring staff to video chat with potential users and ask them to show an ID.
What you are describing is de-anonymization.
> Alternatively, Pornhub can partner with physical storefronts and create a system so that your local corner store can verify you for a fee.
Dito. Plus you now have to announce to your local shop your porn consumption. I have no idea of your local customs, but it's not a subject commonly talked about with the grocery cashier here.
> Dito. Plus you now have to announce to your local shop your porn consumption. I have no idea of your local customs, but it's not a subject commonly talked about with the grocery cashier here.
No different than having to buy porn magazines at your local corner store.... And that's the point. If you include having to present yourself to someone, never in history has there ever been a presumption of complete anonymity. That's a made up right. In general, if you're embarrassed to tell someone else what you're doing you probably shouldn't do it.
> No different than having to buy porn magazines at your local corner store.... And that's the point.
So… going 25 years back in time and forgo any online shopping ? Or your argumentum ad antiquitatem should only apply to porn ?
> never in history has there ever been a presumption of complete anonymity.
Everything as a first.
> In general, if you're embarrassed to tell someone else what you're doing you probably shouldn't do it.
That's an absolute insane take. Different peoples have different morals values, not wanting to broadcast your personal life as nothing to do with "embarrassment", and a lot of time, more about your safety.
Should people don't abort because they don't want to tell everyone about it ?
Do you always tell your coworkers when your going to take shit ?
Do you share your sexual life with your plumber ? Even if he's a religious bigot and your gay ?
Online shopping is not anonymous at all. You provide your name, address, etc.
> That's an absolute insane take. Different peoples have different morals values, not wanting to broadcast your personal life as nothing to do with "embarrassment", and a lot of time, more about your safety.
Absolutely! You have every right to think showing pornography to children is not only morally right, but morally required. However, the laws of the state of California, and most other states, say it's illegal. So regardless of what you think, under the law you are a criminal.
You're probably not totally wrong, but I'm failing to see where pornography fits into this. No one is going to die due to lack of access to porn. We made do for decades / centuries with having to show ID or convincing someone else to get it for you.
That's a human trafficking example, not a porn one.
There human trafficking problem in plenty of activities, from housework to construction, restaurant and agriculture. Would you argue that demand for these activity drive demande for trafficking ?
False, as interaction on the web and in meatspace are not equivalent.
By going to a brick & mortar shop, you already know you have to show your face and have kind of a low expectation of privacy (and its already a problem for some people to go to a sex shop, in part because of the social stigma some religion put on enjoying sex), but you don't have to ID yourself further assuming you look old enough.
Checking age in a brick & mortar shop, for anything from alcool to porn, doesn't force you to log your identity in a database.
On the contrary, you don't have to show your face to access a website, neither have to ID yourself.
By requiring it for porn, even with a convoluted pseudo-privacy-focused way, you're now requiring it for any website that could host porn even if it's not their focus (e.g : reddit, twitter), or pushing said websites to become puritan.
> Checking age in a brick & mortar shop, for anything from alcool to porn, doesn't force you to log your identity in a database.
Neither does checking age on the web. The whole 'database' thing is a scare tactic. They have to make sure you're not a minor. That's it.
Again, I'm shocked this is controversial. You can be the most pro-porn person on the planet, but surely you don't think children should be exposed to this stuff, right? In many states, children can't even see inside liquor stores (mandated blackout curtains), yet we think it's okay they're watching porn? Come on. Let's just be normal.
> you're now requiring it for any website that could host porn even if it's not their focus (e.g : reddit, twitter), or pushing said websites to become puritan.
Well... yeah? If you have user generated content, you have to moderate it. Remember during the previous two presidential elections when we demanded every website moderate political speech? And now, it's a porn free for all?
plot twist: they leave it up, collect telemetry to match and understand the data behind pirating vs. owned emulation, find it useful to open the platform, focus on services, and build their business to 10x on software almost exclusively
not probable, but that would be interesting to see
On another level, we could pivot to UBI instead of dedicating ressource to enforce fake scarcity.