The approval process is instance-specific; if you think that’s what’s keeping people away from Lemmy, just recommend they join a smaller instance that doesn’t require approval.

Find some simple recipes, and follow them to the letter. If it says to add something “to taste”, just add a small amount of it and assume it’s fine. As long as you aren’t trying to invent your own dishes, or improvise somehow, you should be fine.

Really depends on the object. If it’s a collectible item with a value that’s open to interpretation, I sometimes do, especially if I’m considering buying multiple things. (For example, CCG cards priced at $20, I might offer $70 for a playset of 4.) Those things don’t have firm market value (or that value fluctuates frequently) and there’s usually an easy way to look up a price range quickly to get a sense for what’s a fair or reasonable offer.

If it’s something someone made and is selling, it feels rude to me to haggle. The item has no real market value because it’s something they made; the price is what they’re willing to sell it for. I’ll either buy it for that price, or not buy it at all. I guess the exception would be if they’ve got a sign inviting haggling, which I’ve seen at convention spaces on rare occasion.

Is Beehaw doing something different from the rest of lemmy? You can log into any instance with any of the apps.

Sure is. You might check !lemmyapps@lemmy.world for some suggestions, but there’s many.

(Refer to the pinned megathread.)

Really impossible to say because, to reiterate the point the post you’re replying to made, the media is not covering protests like it was in 2017. There have been multiple protests in all 50 states, some very large, but the word just isn’t getting out about them.

I wonder if Trump hand-signed all of those J6 insurrectionist pardons. Maybe that should be investigated.

I never saw any other solid evidence.

It’s all hearsay; anyone with a search engine can find articles making claims but what’s accurate or not is anyone’s guess. It’s all we’ve got to go on until the trial, most likely.

My understanding (again only based on articles from the past 2+ years that this lawsuit has been in the works) is that it isn’t codified in their agreements at all, but that they can / have either removed games from the store, or removed them from promotion (meaning you could find the game if you searched for it, but it would never show up on the storefront, for instance) in response to games being listed elsewhere cheaper. That’s kind of part of the basis for this lawsuit, by my understanding - I’ve read that they’re using those examples as evidence against Steam that they’re acting anti-competitively.

There’s been a lot of articles and discussion about it since this lawsuit first showed up, and the general gist that I’ve seen is that:

• It’s not codified in their agreements, but
• They can / have in the past either removed products from the Steam store entirely or removed them from curated marketing and promotion in response to the game being listed elsewhere at a lower price.

They seem to handle it on a case by case basis, but in those cases it’s definitely not been restricted only to the sale of Steam keys. They just don’t have any firm legalese to refer to here that I’m aware of.

I haven’t seen the agreement itself, but I’ve never seen anything to lead me to believe it didn’t apply to non-steam key sales. EGS doesn’t sell Steam keys but games still can’t be listed for cheaper on EGS than Steam without violating Steam’s terms, for example.

I really don’t think there’s any way to reasonably argue that Steam should have to give out Steam keys for cheaper sale elsewhere. They’re paying for the servers, they’re paying for the Steam features, they’re paying for the advertising; it stands to reason that people shouldn’t be able to take advantage of that. Even if it was ruled this way, all Steam would have to do is discontinue the free Steam key distribution and instead charge 30% of the game’s price to generate keys, then remove the MFN clause. They’d still get their cut.

I feel like Steam could remove their most favored nation clause (which is what this lawsuit is about) for any storefront that isn’t selling Steam keys specifically, and the amount of sales they’d lose would be effectively a rounding error. I don’t care if a game is 10% cheaper on EGS or itch.io or wherever else; I’m still buying it on Steam because I want to use the services Steam provides. The sole exception is GoG - but even with GoG, I still find it much less reliable than Steam for just being able to get the game working without problems (on linux specifically).

If the product being sold is a Steam key, I don’t think there’s any argument that could stand up against the MFN clause… the fact that Steam allows developers to generate Steam keys for their games for free and sell them elsewhere is pretty generous as it is now.

The Vita (like the PSP before it) was really a stellar handheld for its time. Innovative control options, which a few games used to great effect; great graphics; solid battery life; great looking display; solid and compact construction… I wish it had gotten more support. I loved that thing.

FromSoft’s games have been on my ‘I will buy anything they release’ list for quite some time, and I’ve never been disappointed with one. There’s not much at this point that would get me to stop buying their stuff on release, but a PlayStation account sign-in requirement on PC would definitely accomplish it.

There’s plenty of censorship on Lemmy, but unlike Reddit, the censorship is orchestrated by the individual server, not by a corporation in control of the whole ecosystem. Go post something pro-capitalist on lemmy.ml, or something claiming climate change is a hoax on slrpnk.net, or something anti-trans on lemmy.blahaj.zone and see how fast it gets taken down - you could consider that censorship, but the reason Lemmy is better than Reddit in this regard is that you can go post that same thing on another instance, in a community that supports those views, and it’ll stay up. It’s all up to the administration of the individual instance.

Even if you can’t find an instance / community that will espouse your unique views, you can create your own, and post whatever you like, and everyone who federates with you will be able to see it. That’s how Lemmy is resistant to censorship.

I’m not touching the lemmy.ml question with a ten foot pole, someone else can field that one.

Jesus, these comments.

• Mark Warner is a Democrat
• He was not up for re-election this year.

Who is in charge of defining what is hate speech and extremist behaviour?

The specific behavior that’s being called out here - antisemitic, Nazi, sexuality- or gender-based hate, and white supremacist content - are pretty common definitions of hate speech and extremist behavior. Either way, he calls out Valve’s own internally written content policies - which he states aren’t being enforced - as the point of contention; he doesn’t seem to be imposing outside views on them.

What if it were the people who don’t agree with your definitions is in charge of setting the definitions?

Then Steam becomes X or Truth Social, I guess? I think the chances of that happening are incredibly slim. A more likely negative outcome would be the terms being interpreted to broadly and positive speech being limited along with the negative, but to your point

Slippery slope.

Aren’t you the one committing the slippery slope fallacy here? You’re seemingly suggesting that a crackdown on hate speech will lead to or open the door to a bunch of negative outcomes.

Free speech is one of those things that is absolute. You are either for it or not, any encroachment is going to be the anti position. Obviously popular speech isn’t something that needs to be protected.

If you’re defining ‘free speech’ as the ability to say whatever you want, wherever you want (including on private platforms), without facing consequences, then no, I don’t support (your rigid definition of) free speech. I think that’s a ridiculous definition to use, though, and I don’t think it should be viewed as black or white. ‘Free speech absolutism’ is what leads to misinformation on the scale we’re currently seeing (in the US). Furthermore, ‘free speech’ as outlined in the first amendment doesn’t apply here at all.

Regardless, I don’t like the idea of my kid (or any kids) being exposed to Nazi, white supremacist, or discriminatory rhetoric when he’s on a gaming platform. Since that’s specifically what Warner claims to be addressing here, I support calling it into question.

As Black Friday and the holiday buying season approaches, the American public should know that not only is Steam an unsafe place for teens and young adults to purchase and play online games, but also that, absent a change in Valve’s approach to user moderation and the type of behavior that it welcomes on its platform, Steam is playing a clear role in allowing harmful ideologies to spread and take root among the next generation.

Asking Valve to crack down on hate-speech and extremist behavior? Sounds great. There’s some really awful shit on there and I’d love it if they’d do something about it before it becomes fully entrenched as a Nazi bar.

Edit: I’d also love to hear why the folks who apparently disagree feel that way. Is it because other platforms are worse? Because they are, but that doesn’t mean our platform should be allowed to be bad, too. Is it because it’s a gaming platform and you want to keep the politics out of our hobby? I’m with you, but this isn’t really political per se, and it’s not like he’s specifically targeting Steam - as the article notes, he’s been drawing attention to this sort of thing on a variety of platforms, so why is it suddenly objectionable to you that he’s calling Steam out?

I guess what I’m getting at is, why not engage in a discussion about it? The downvotes here suggest that you have an opinion on the topic, so why not share it?

The ILA’s president, Harold Daggett, brings in nearly $1 million a year ($902,000) in salary

Wow… I didn’t know that, but that’s kind of disgusting, too.

I think one of the best solutions for this is to offer some sort of retraining for the workers who will be displaced by automation.

The problem with retraining being the only consideration given is that unless they’re maintaining the same level of pay in whatever position they’re being retrained for, it’s not equitable. A possible improvement would be for workers displaced by automation to continue to receive salaries from their old positions for a period of time, with the percentage of their original pay rate decreasing over that time. This needn’t just be dockworkers; there’s plenty of difficult, demanding or menial jobs that could be automated, if we didn’t have this misguided sense that everyone has to have a job, no matter how unnecessary it is for a human to be doing it.

I do agree with you that automation should be the end-goal, though. We just need a better system to support anyone whose jobs are made redundant by it.