Don’t let this story distract from the far more important news of Rockstar firing 33 employees for forming a union, making up a flimsy excuse after the fact, and getting a judge to deny interim relief to the fired workers.

Geez on the evidence they’ve shared here, Rockstar has so obviously fucked up.

The best piece of evidence in their favour is that employees discussed, in a space open to former employees and an external union representative, that the number of people allowed on leave at a time is heavily restricted because they need to be able to get 32 people together at once to test an online game feature. Rockstar claims this reveals information so sensitive their barrister wouldn’t even read that part out in court, only in written submissions. The idea of “an online service that can support at least 32 users” is TOP SECRET and worth insta-firing 33 people with no hearing, according to Rockstar. As the video points out, it really feels like they’ve trawled through the evidence to find a post-hoc justification for the firings.

It’s what I wrote before learning the actual judgment.

I am absolutely shocked that it went the way it did. Apparently interim relief is a very high burden, so this doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have a decent chance of winning the substantive case. But still…without knowing the details not the applicable law, it certainly feels ridiculous given how blatantly terrible Rockstar’s argument is.

At least how it’s framed in this and PMG’s previous videos on the topic.

Also posted to [email protected]

https://aussie.zone/post/28598031

i’m considering mailing the school about it as well

Never mind this facial age check thing, have you seen the People Make Games exposés into Roblox’s child endangerment/exploitation? Anyone who lets their kids play Roblox should at least be paying close attention to their kids’ use of the game. Even more so than on any game.

Most of the post is geared more towards Mastodon/microblogiverse content, rather than Lemmy/threadiverse stuff. There’s a lot of cultural overlap, but where they diverge, this post aims for the former.

Direct link to the Toot.

You’re welcome, @[email protected]

Do you think that these are unrelated? Capitalism builds on puritanical protestant ideology, which played a part in the early spread of capitalist ideology. See Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It’s not a perfect cause and effect, but rather one piece of a web of cultural influences.

Off topic, but 4chan is exempt from Australia’s recent social media minimum age laws because of the fact that it doesn’t require accounts.

Most, if not all, of these year in reviews is literally “here’s a summary of the things you explicitly did on our platform while logged in to your account this year”. It’s kind of absurd to call that tracking. Like, Lemmy and Piefed do have that data, this meme aside. It’s literally located at https://lemmy.ca/u/ech (admins, but not regular users, can also see upvotes and downvotes). They just chose not to do any sort of summary or analysis of your data for the year.

I suppose then, for any child born around 00:10 on 1 January, there might be some pressure to encourage the doctor to write the birth certificate as something more like 23:50 on 31 December? Because of the social prestige with being older?

Or maybe the opposite, since being physically older than your peers is correlated with better academic and sporting performance?

A few years ago, iirc, the Korean government instructed people to stop using the traditional system and to use the international system instead. Has that had much of an effect in practice, or are people largely ignoring it? Or do you think it’s something that younger generations will pick up more over time while older people continue using the traditional system? (This last option being sort of what happened in Australia when we transitioned to metric through the '70s.)

Also, what happens to someone born on 1 January? Are they born du sal, and thus the youngest of their sal, or born han sal and remain han sal for a whole year?

On the nation-state

Then I think it’s really important that you are clear about that, mainly with yourself, but also any time you talk about the issue in public. Conflating Israel with all Jewish people is a deliberate attempt by the Israeli government and its supporters to make it easier for them to brush off criticism of their actions as “antisemitism”, and is itself an antisemitic act.

It’s also a major factor in increasing genuine antisemitism, because some people see the atrocities the Israel government is committing, see that Israel claims to be acting on behalf of all Jews, and then they turn around and blame all Jews for the actions of Israel. Which only serves to help Israel’s case, which is why it’s so important we be clear about the distinction whenever possible.

that’s kinda harsh on jewish people

Harsh on Jewish people as a whole, or harsh on the nation-state of Israel and its supporters, many of whom are Jewish?

I don’t particularly like the notion that it’s unreasonable to expect to be able to get healthy food at affordable prices without being required to use a car…

Or the conflation of using a cargo bike with being some impractical urban hipster.

They might have actually somehow managed to come up with worse logos than Google uses. I assume the top one is an email app, the bottom left is a file manager, and bottom centre is a password manager? But I’m less than certain about those, and everything else is a complete mystery.

Sorry mate, but you’ve got it wrong. The Prime Minister has specifically come out and said that this law is aimed only at companies, and that children or the parents of children who are able to get onto social media anyway will not be punished. Only the companies that let them slip through.

And you only need to read the legislation to see that that’s true. There are no penalties associated with accessing social media under the age of 16. Only with “a provider of an age-restricted social media platform…failing to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts”. Or less closely related, “a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not collect information…for the purpose of complying with [the above requirement] if the information is of a kind specified in the legislative rules”, and another similar “a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not…collect government-issued identification material…for the purpose of complying with section [the above requirement]”, but this last clause “does not apply if…the provider provides alternative means…for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user”. It is also the case that a person who provides an age-restricted social media platform “must comply with a requirement…to give to the Commissioner, within the period and in the manner and form specified by the notice [about that person’s compliance with the law]…to the extent that the person is capable of doing so.”

That’s it. That’s all the new penalties that can be applied.

Here’s a page from the eSafety Commissioner that also confirms it.

Are there be penalties for under-16s if they get around the age restrictions?

There are no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers.

The fact is, right now we know that Facebook has at times made a deliberate, conscious choice to leave in aspects of their algorithm that were causing harm. Their own studies have shown this. Making that practice illegal—knowingly causing harm with your algorithm—would be a good place to start with regulation.

no age can go on the internet.

I don’t think anyone had ever suggested anything like that.