Not exactly. Reddit always took down CSAM (how effectively I don't know, but I've been using the site consistently since 2011 and I've never come across it).

What Reddit did get a lot of negative public publicity for were subreddits focused on sharing non-explicit photos of minors, but with loads of sexually charged comments. The images themselves, nobody would really object to in isolation, but the discussions surrounding the images were all lewd. So not CSAM, but still creepy and something Reddit tightly decided it didn't want on the site.

It's closer to 30 now, passed in 1998.

Reddit recently announced a change that capped the number of large subreddits than any individual can moderate. It might reduce this problem.

They'll get two accounts

But competitors to Steam exist: Epic Games Store only takes a 12% cut. Publishers have an option to use other distributors but choose not to.

Sure, and you can buy an android phone and use the play store instead and still get charged 30%. Or you could sideload, but let’s be real 99.9% of users aren’t gonna do that, and similarly most gamers are gonna buy everything on steam.

The exceptions here prove the rule I’m afraid, if anything.

> Publishers have an option to use other distributors but choose not to

They can choose to sell in the store where all users are, or in the store nobody goes.

Correct, but that means that publishers are choosing to distribute via Steam, despite the existence of other options, because Steam's superior features, user base, etc. justify paying that premium. They could distribute on Epic games, or even self-distribute like how Blizzard does, but they choose Steam.

It's not analogous to iOS that has no other options for distribution.

What is the value of $X?

> and the more you make means less other people have

This is a false zero sum view of wealth that is unfortunately all too common.

Economy growing at 3-5% in the US. Rich people's wealth growing at a far higher rate. Which means the middle class wealth is getting siphoned to the rich. The middle class is getting poorer and we can all see that.

> Rich people's wealth growing at a far higher rate. Which means the middle class wealth is getting siphoned to the rich.

No, that logic doesn't follow. Say my wealth grew by 3% and my neighbor's grew by 5%. That doesn't imply any sort of "siphoning" at play.

Which is exactly the same as "my wealth was constant and my neighbor's grew"

Which is exactly the same as "my neighbor's the same and my wealth decreased"

Which is exactly the same as "getting siphoned to the rich"

Money have no intrinsic value: its only value is relative the others (and also depends on what can be bought ..)

> Which is exactly the same as "my wealth was constant and my neighbor's grew"

> Which is exactly the same as "my neighbor's the same and my wealth decreased

No, not even remotely true. This is a fixed sum view of wealth that assumes the only way to obtain wealth is to take it from someone else.

Say I have a 3,000 sq ft house on a quarter acre lot, and so does my neighbor. My neighbor's company has a successful IPO and he sells his equity to buy a 6,000 sq ft house on a half acre lot, then how has my wealth decreased?

If you have no raise and your neighbor have a raise, then you are poorer

It may be easier to understand globally: if you have no raise but everybody have a raise, then you are poorer (because everything cost more, but you have no raise)

> If you have no raise and your neighbor have a raise, then you are poorer

This is just factually wrong. If my neighbor gets a raise and I don't, and stuff costs the same amount then I have not gotten poorer. If my neighbor doubled his income tomorrow, how would I be any poorer? In theory, you could argue that his higher income results in inflation, but that's only the case if total productivity doesn't match the increase in the money supply.

Wealth is not zero sum: inflation adjusted wealth has increased over time: more houses and cars get built, more advanced industries increase productivity, etc. Wealth is not a fixed pie, the total amount of wealth in the world increases.

When minimal wage increases, everything costs more ..

Wealth has no intrinsic value, it is only relative to other and to what can be exchanged with money

The numbers may always go up but the things that can be exchanged does not. Hence the "you become poorer"

> The numbers may always go up but the things that can be exchanged does not.

No, the things that can be exchanged for money does go up. More houses get built, more cars are manufactured, etc. The total value of goods in the economy increases.

The economy is not zero sum.

You are absolutely right: after all, you repeated the same things multiple time so it must be true

Yes indeed, every body can have everything. In the end, everybody will have a palace near the beach, everybody will have a mansion with a qualitative neighborhood, everybody can have a mona lisa at home

(trying ad absurdum to see if it helps you)

You realize there's a vast gap between "everyone can have everything" and "the things that can be exchanged for money is static"?

We don't live in a post-scarcity society, but we also don't live in a world where economic output is zero sum.

If you have a 3 bedroom house, and your neighbor builds a palace on the beach, you still have a 3 bedroom house. Nothing was taken from you, someone else created a new asset.

It's not just about logic, it's about data. The middle class is becoming impoverished and increasingly more precarious while the wealthiest are capturing ever larger gains.

Capitalism concentrates capital in fewer hands.

Capitalists earn money through control of capital. They're actually parasites that extract all the labour and value from others below them in the system. Capital is taxed lower than labour in most developed countries, at every turn capital is advantaged at the expense of living beings. There is no positive morality in this system of mass impoverishment.

I think we should put this to the test. The working class stops working for a week/month and we'll see how "productive" the rich capitalists really are.

Haven't you read Capital? Marx's core premise which nobody actually working in economics denies is that the nature of wealth is to consolidate in the hands of the few. So while wealthier people may consume more, that does not factor into "fairness" because they are hoarding their wealth, amassing power over others, and using it disproportionately to maximize their pleasure, power, influence, etc at the cost of the suffering of others.

But I take it from your glib comment you'll disagree or deny that.

> Marx's core premise which nobody actually working in economics denies is that the nature of wealth is to consolidate in the hands of the few

the same point is discussed Piketty in Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

> Haven't you read Capital?

LOL. Do you actually think that person has read Capital or much of anything economics related? These types of internet arguments don't happen among equally equipped participants. People can just say random shit on the internet it turns out. They do it all the time.

I know, my comment is rhetorical. They are clearly talking out of their ass.

At what point to we have to stop playing pretend with people who never participate in good faith? I get the argument that there are ignorant observers who might learn something. But I've not actually seen any sort of data to support anything like that.

For me it was just about calling out bullshit premises where I see them. I don't mind taking 10 seconds to do it every single time.

Maybe my methods were too subtle here, but the point was simply to illustrate that the OP's comment had no connection to reality, with receipts (citing sources)

You can use the source code to build your own MMO, but not one that replicates BitCraft's servers. Since the assets themselves are not open sourced, it wouldn't really be possible to do that anyway.

It's much more permissive than source available: you can use the source code for nearly any of your own projects, just not one specific application.

Remember those systems are non-intermittent and have lifespans of 50 years or more. Server farms are not amenable to load shifting, they expect round the clock power. Trying to power them with intermittent sources would need very hefty power banks.

If this nuclear plant has 2 GW of power output, were talking about 2.4 billion dollars to store 12 hours worth of the plant's output assuming $100 per KWh of storage.

Sure, but once countries hit a moderate level of development the bulk of preventable infant deaths are handled. E.g. Frances' rate has been flat since the turn of the millennium.