These are getting weird
cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/webcomics/p/1198637/these-are-getting-weird
These are getting weird
cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/webcomics/p/1198637/these-are-getting-weird
I still have sympathy for people who bought in years ago and thought they were doing something good. Not everyone is financially stable enough to get rid of a big investment like that. Buying an EV was different 10 years ago.
That said, anyone with a Cyberstuck or a newer model with the T E S L A spelled out on the back has zero excuse.
The first time I remember Elon really letting the mask slip was the Thai cave rescue in 2018. After his jury-rigged submarine failed, he publicly called one of the actual rescuers a pedophile simply for pointing out that the project looked more like a PR stunt than a rescue plan. Looking back, it’s easy to see the warning signs, but at the time it’s understandable why many people were still ambivalent about him.
I wonder how many of these people who believe that Tesla owners who bought their car long before Elon showed his true colors own a Ford. Do they know what kind of person Henry Ford was and the writings he published? How many own Volkswagens?
In my view, the Tesla and Elon hate are justified because of, well, everything that’s come to light over the past few yars. But all this clamoring that people who still own a Tesla they bought 7+ years ago are terrible people is just virtue signaling. The same logic ought to be applied to any Ford bought after 1920, or any Volkswagen.
geniusbee.tumblr.com/…/these-are-getting-weird
From this comment in the crosspost:
lemmy.world/comment/24285992
I bought this before Elon went crazy
Didn’t know they made teslas in 1971
As far as I know, none. But it does make me hesitant to post any new ones to Lemmy.
In all fairness, he seems to have stopped. Still downvoting him every time though.
I’m reporting every time.
Removing attribution is just bad (and should break rules), but smurf accounts usually break instance rules.
How is that not ruining the art but removing Picasso’s signature would be? I agree art should be free but that doesn’t mean we should make it easier to steal from artists that should be getting paid even if their art is distributed for free.
If you posted a Picasso piece and went thru the extra steps to remove his signature even digitally & then post it it’s kinda like a ripoff, you’re just unnecessarily removing the credit from the person who actually did the work.
Wtf are you saying?
That has nothing to do with copyright, if you remove the signature of a famous Picasso art everyone will still know that is a Picasso art but from a random on the internet you’re just making things difficult for the artist to spread their work for NO FUCKING REASON. You’re having more work to just fuck an artist to gain absolute nothing.
I don’t believe in morals
And I don’t believe in cancer. Now off to gulag with you
If you post someone’s are and remove their watermark, you are stealing
I couldn’t give two shits about sharing other’s work, just properly attribute it or fuck off.
You are stealing the credit they should get when people who aren’t familiar with the work. If you can’t handle that, you’re free to kindly fuck off or get absolutely dog piled for being wrong. As I stated before, I don’t care about content sharing as long as people are properly credited.
Beep is a well known content thief who actively modifies works to remove the author attribution. That is effectively digital theft, and I don’t give a fuck what you think about the matter.
Yeah nobody’s arguing sharing digital files, hell I’m an avid pirate myself, but in this case it isn’t just “downloading The Godfather,” it’s downloading it, editing out the credits for literally no reason, and re-uploading it under my account on another site.
Honestly with something like The Godfather it wouldn’t really matter, but with a much lesser known pet project B movie, even if the creators support piracy they’d like you to at least maybe see their name. This comic would be the latter, while you could safely trim the name off of like, Charles Shultz’s Peanuts, and assume people probably can figure it out.
There’s income related to making and sharing digital media. It’s not as simple as a simple monetary transaction, but there’s income in social media presence and exposure which can be converted into monetary income. In any case, by removing the signature, the person is intentionally cutting that income stream from the artist.
It’s more difficult to argue that it’s stealing, since even though the person removing attribution from an artist is taking something from the artist, they’re not necessarily gaining it for themselves.