Generalized software solution meets reality. Reality wins, again.

Those were typed, so it obviously doesn't count, duh.

Don't waste you time, energy and emotional capacity trying to earnestly engage with people unwilling to do the same. You will gain nothing. They might gain something, beyond living rent-free in your head. It's a deal neither fair nor healthy.

Should probably apply that to every social media, not just Lemmy.

This feels like something that should be solved by code, not culture. Users shouldn't be inconveniencing others when simply trying to share content with all relevant communities.

Aww buddy, yer not very good at following them unwritten rules, are ya? Dont worry 'bout it too much, let's try that one more time!

Don't ask about the murders.

It was a headshot. What happens next? Who knows.

God gets tired of testing humanity, descends to tell people to persecute billionaires instead of gays.

Microsoft actually loves open source and releases the NTFS driver code under a useful license.

I am happy.

England explodes, or something—I don't make the rules.

Seems you created a new account just for this post, leaving us without the ability to look into what happened in the past and no evidence of your own for the claims made. You might have a point, but you could also just be a jerk, Fuckers "Go fuck yourself."

Mods and admins are the people responsible for upholding rules and stopping hate speech, with the assistance of the community. How should they do this without the power to silence violent voices and rule-breakers? Actual question, moderation is a complex social system.

If you genuinely believe you have been banned for no reason, please reach out to people capable of helping you with all relevant information, assuming you haven't done so already.

If you were a jerk, consider good ol' self-reflection.

Thank you for clarifying, and with a reference, too. That's pretty much what I thought. It's great to have confirmation, though.

I don't think that's the kind of watermark being talked about here, Kol.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology would be called upon to, quoted from the COPIED ACT Summary, facilitate development of guidelines for voluntary, consensus-based standards and for detection of synthetic content, watermarking and content provenance information, including evaluation, testing and cybersecurity protection. I believe we're talking about the unseen, math-y, certification and (I imagine) cryptography kind of digital watermark, not the crappy visual edits made by iFunny and co.

In fact, since it also says:

Prohibits removing, altering, tampering with, or disabling content provenance information, with a limited exception for security research purposes.

The content in question might reach e.g. iFunny already "signed" and they wouldn't be able to remove that.

Of course, I'm saying this without actually fully understanding what fits under covered content (digital representations of copyrighted works). Does my OC on deviantart count as covered content? I think so, but I couldn't tell you for certain. If anyone can help me understand this, please, that'd be really nice.

And finally, as was already said by others, I think this does nothing about all the crap companies already did to artists, since the law can't affect them retroactively. It's not that cool for small artists, since they'll still be abused, except big tech would have the legal monopoly on abuse.

I mean no disrespect by this: did you read the article? I'm genuinely curious how you got the iFunny idea.

You know that it’s not a new concept, right? Just a new word for a specific type of rent seeking that has plagued capitalism forever.

Any pre-existing name for this specific type of rent seeking you'd rather people used instead? For what it's worth, I believe enshittification has its own benefits.

It’s nice to see people learning economics from YA fiction authors, but read some books man

There are better ways to express yourself than this.

Being a YA fiction author does not diminish the worth of one's ideas or their other works. Cory also worked with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is absolutely a position that, coupled with his many years of studying the digital landscape, gives him a level of insight into it that makes people interested in what he has to say about it, and for good reason. It's not merely about economics.

If you think people could do the subject, themselves, or others better in this regard by consuming better material, you could point a better direction than "read some books"

Production constraints. Bringing in Maus parts to most tank factories would result in utter chaos as the Tigers and Panthers chased after them for fun.

Enshittification will often involve doing things like this, yes. But as the link itself states, the actual meaning—per Doctorow's original definition—is an entire process, and a little more descriptive. These things are not the same, one is just frequently a symptom of the other.

Sorry if this comes across as pedantic, I'm in a personal quest, of sorts, to protect the original meaning because I think it's too important to lose. To anyone else reading this: please, don't use enshittification when you really only mean "the platform is doing something bad."

For the quoted behavior, I'm a big proponent of "asshole design."