flamingarms

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Sounds like the intro paragraph to someone's term paper at uni.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Collective action can certainly be powerful. But your plan seems to have some pretty glaring holes. Strikes aren't protected in the US for non-work-related issues, are they? And you'd have to decide when the strike ends, i.e. when a "good" candidate is proposed, which everyone will have different opinions on. Seems to me the better move would be to be pushing for a rework of the voting system into one that allows voting for other parties without throwing away a vote.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Ah gotcha; that's helpful. That's not been my understanding of this content, so I'll have to look into that, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

You say it's a copyright license, and I think that's exactly where I'm struggling with this. My understanding is that this is a license for something copyrighted or otherwise protected. Copyright protects things from their creation. A copyright license provides certain people action that would otherwise be denied by copyright. So are you saying that your understanding is that what we write here on Lemmy is copyrighted, with authors holding the rights? That would be helpful to know because that has not been my understanding of copyright (and I know country plays an important role here), so that would be interesting to look into.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Oh I clicked the link, mate, and read through a couple links deep. What I'm saying is that my understanding of the license is that it allows permissions for a restricted item, but it does not restrict an item with open permissions. You know what I mean? You need to be a rights holder of something that is protected by copyright or the like, and then you can use this license to open permissions in certain ways, in this case that the item can be used for non-commercial means. So this wouldn't work with stuff on Lemmy, right?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (10 children)

My understanding of the Creative Commons licenses is that they are for providing permission to people to use something that they wouldn't be able to otherwise, due to copyright or other issues. I don't think the licenses are capable of limiting what people can do with something if it's already the wild west, or do I have that wrong?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Cool system; thanks for the run through!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Is it here in the post? I've looked all over and can't find mention of that. There's the video of the author clearing it, but that doesn't imply that all levels are beatable.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Looks like that's still the case. His website only seems to be a place where you can donate or volunteer. Guess his campaign is just focused on social media now? I get the potential value in that; it's like old-school campaigning. But wouldn't you still want a clear and easy place outside of videos where people can reference your values, accomplishments, and further goals?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The sword of Damocles hung only by a single hair.

view more: ‹ prev next ›