• 0 Posts
  • 110 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle
  • Tesla is far from alone in flashing the “death cross.” The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 both showed it as well on Monday, as the indexes continue to fluctuate in wild and somewhat unpredictable ways thanks to the endless uncertainty that the Trump administration has introduced to the market through its blanket tariffs and “will they, won’t they” exceptions that keep getting tacked on and taken off.

    An individual stock hitting this point doesn’t really seem like that big a deal when indexes are getting there.


  • The article is out of date. According to this one, the game has been removed from sale on Steam in the UK, Canada and Australia, and the dev is going to withdraw it from Steam entirely.

    Zerat Games has announced it will withdraw its sexually explicit visual novel from Steam after it was removed from sale in the UK, Canada, and Australia.

    Posted to the game’s Steam page, which is no longer accessible to those who have not previously purchased the game, the developer defended its title but confirmed it would be removed from the platform.

    “We don’t intend to fight the whole world, and specifically, we don’t want to cause any problems for Steam and Valve,” the developer said.





  • No, because they can afford the legal fees. It will be worst for smaller sites. From the article:

    With Section 230, if a website (or a user!) wants to defend its right to keep content up (or take it down), winning such a case typically costs around $100,000. Without those protections, even if you’d ultimately win on First Amendment grounds, you’re looking at about $2 million in legal fees. For Meta or Google, that’s a rounding error. For a small news site or blog, it’s potentially fatal. And this includes users who simply forward an email or retweet something they saw. Section 230 protects them as well, but without it, they’re at the whims of legal threats.















  • ryper@lemmy.catoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Also, I realize the goal of the Texas law is to label anything GLBT+ as “porn.”

    They may not even need to go that far. The age verification laws going around these days tend to require it for content “harmful to minors”, not just porn, and everybody knows Republicans think “anything GLBT+” is harmful to minors.