Hi I’m a human, maybe a furry, not an AI. Also ‘‘venia_sil’’ on Fedia.

Sometimes my posts are licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Contact if looking for a licensing deal.

Website? Website.

  • 0 Posts
  • 65 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2025

help-circle









  • I’ve had nothing but good experiences with hexbear in my lemmy history, I think, but then again I value more the communities than the users, and thus I prefer instances that won’t arbitrarily keep me from getting good content from elsewhere. I tend to not track where a user is in the Fediverse - every internet dog is free to create accounts anywhere, anyway.

    But… comparatively speaking, lg.ml seems to have little if anything to offer in comparison. The “tinted left” stuff that I care about can be more easily found in l.ml anyway.

    I’d say give it a two weeks trial. A full month might be a bit too much, both for the people pro and con.



  • Besides the obvious issue with “minimum date” that big corpo would just litigate to be able to set the minimum date as “tomorrow” or something to that effect, there are a number of small (for the most part) issues that stem from your assumption that “games cannot be unique in how it offers/forbids live-service games”.

    Not to mention: operationally speaking, numero 2 and numero 3 are just the same from a consumer perspective anyway. You get a game, that you pay for, and regardless of how well you pay (or not) or your satisfaction with the game (or not), it can be rescinded from you at any time. A “minimum time” does not really change things because just like for things like gyms, which you mention, the provision is not a mutual establishment. One of the parties (the provider) can rescind that deal at any given time within that minimum - maybe the gym does not like your moustache, or they found a client that pays triple what you pay for the given locker.

    For numero 2 to function differently and to be felt differently from a consumer perspective, IMO, it has to meet us in the middle through the same path numero 1 does: payment has to be one-time-only. After yo’ve paid for the acquisition, you get access to the legally promised product for the duration, and after that time, there is no obligation nor provision for either party to care about the transaction having taken place. This would also cover that once the duration is over, you would be able to legally hack into the thingy continue usage by yourself if, for any reason, the corpo failed their mandate to hand over service to the public. In this model, the payment being one-time-only creates an initial balance with the duration of the “first-party” service, since the provider knows after that deadline is over thet can’t hit you for piracy, the more if it was their fault.