this seems equivalent to banning a cybersecurity community because encryption get used by bad actors sometimes, so discussion of staying anonymous online needs to be banned

using your analogy; it's like banning access to a piracy community because sometimes pirates use it..

pirates sometimes use meme communities too, but those aren't banned, and .world isn't completely defederated from db0, so that's not it.

so discussion of staying anonymous online needs to be banned since information about staying anonymous online is "sharing the tools and techniques" that could be used in assisting criminal activity.

staying anonymous online is not a crime though. copyright infringement is a crime. that's why the analogy doesn't make sense.

scenario is: people are linking to law-breaking content in x-community. therefore, .world is choosing to ban said x-community that facilitates it, to prevent legal liability.

I understand the need to draw the line at actually sharing copyrighted content, but discussion of lockpicks or linking to sites that sell lockpicks is not equivalent to going around illegally picking locks, except it seems that is exactly the case when it comes to piracy but no other topics.

you're right, while lock picking can be illegal, it's not always illegal. however, copyright law violations are always illegal.

this law-breaking content happens to be copyright infringement/piracy material. another example a host might ban would be a community that is linking to CP, or a community that is linking to Identity theft sources, etc. even if it's just users posting links to this sort of content, I can understand a host not wanting to expose themselves to any sort of legal liability.

I mean, they're somewhat right, if they're talking about RS Classic -> RS2..

but yeah, he left before RS3

Femtanyl - AND IM GONE

any benefits of this over Spicetify? does SpotX also support theming?

what kind of apps cant be updated through playstore/fdroid?

it's not that they can't be (maybe some apps I use can't) but rather that I don't like some things about F-Droid. One of the big things being unreliable app updates. They are often significantly outdated compared to GitHub releases.

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/android/#f-droid

"Due to their process of building apps, apps in the official F-Droid repository often fall behind on updates. F-Droid maintainers also reuse package IDs while signing apps with their own keys, which is not ideal as it gives the F-Droid team ultimate trust."

dumb decision to dedicate yourself to a proprietary game's little microtransaction market now aint it.

Owners of CSGO(CS2) 3rd party marketplaces seem to be making a killing off of fees, so it can be done successfully. But I doubt that Rocket League trading sites see anywhere near the volume of CS2 sites.

Why in gods name would a game remove trading after it'd been around for a while?

Jagex removed trading from RuneScape back in the day, for less greedy purposes than Epic is doing here, and it effectively killed their game.

You don't want to understand, am I right? I don't get you.

No, I understand. You are fine with regional pricing as long as there's absolutely no way to enforce regional pricing. Which, when talking about a purely digital storefront, means there will be no more regional pricing.

This has already started happening in some regard. Recently, many games on Steam have already had their regional pricing removed, to the ire of gamers in poorer regions.

Truly a massive W

No that's exactly the same thing.

No it's not. Telling someone from California that they can't buy products in Mississippi is WAY different than telling them they are offered a different price in the two states. They are not told that they can't buy it. Your analogy does not translate to the situation.

What they ~~don't can~~ [can't do] is tell other EU citizens that they are not able to buy the product in those EU countries.

That's not what they're told though. They are told "yes, you can buy our product."

I don't know why you can't understand this simple fact.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. You're telling me you don't have a problem with regional pricing (within the EU) on digital goods, but you're stating that companies must offer that same 'regional' pricing to everyone (within the EU).. that's no longer regional pricing, it's all just one price then. These two lines of thought completely contradict each other. How can you have regional pricing if you want everyone from every region to be offered the same price?

Do you really think that companies who offer discounts on digital goods to buyers in poorer regions are being nefarious? If the companies are not able to regionally price the games, then they cannot offer a discount to the poorer regions, and all that happens is everyone in the poorer regions ends up paying more.