The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[Copyright Alert System] Or, how to alienate everyone. Six Strikes rollout begins Monday.

DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
edited February 2013 in Debate and/or Discourse
(Pardon me if this subject was posted before, I haven't seen this subject come up in the first half-dozen pages or through a cursory forum search.)

Whelp, it appears the "Copyright Alert System" is going active on the big ISPs starting on Monday.

This will, at the start, apply to AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.

Here's a snazzy new propa- "informational" video and web site, courtesy of the "Center for Copyright Information".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQTONXs_N-A


How will this work? Well, let's start by asking CCI themselves!

What is Copyright Alert?
What is a Copyright Alert?

Artists, moviemakers and other owners of content join public peer-2-peer (P2P) networks to see if the music, movies, and TV shows they’ve made available are being shared without permission and in violation of U.S. copyright law. If they notice that a file is being shared illegally, they notify the appropriate Internet Service Provider (ISP) and that ISP, in turn, passes on that notice to their subscriber as a Copyright Alert.

Subscribers are responsible for making sure their Internet account is not used for copyright infringement. Copyright Alerts assist in this process by:

Making accountholders aware that unlawful content sharing may have happened using their internet account;
Educating accountholders on how they can prevent copyright infringement from happening again and
Providing consumers information about ways to access digital content legally.

After receiving one Alert, we believe most consumers will take the appropriate steps to avoid additional Alerts. However, if copyright infringement continues on a subscriber’s account, our member ISPs can take steps that temporarily affect that subscriber’s Internet experience.

Depending on the service provider, the ISP’s range of actions may include:

A temporary reduction in Internet speed;
A temporary downgrade in Internet service tier or
Redirection to a landing page for a set period of time, until a subscriber contacts the ISP or until the subscriber completes an online copyright education program.

Before each Alert is sent, a rigorous process ensures the content identified is definitely protected by copyright and that the notice is forwarded to the right Subscriber. Nonetheless, if a subscriber feels that he or she has received a one or more Alerts in error, CCI has created an Independent Review Process for subscribers to pursue before any additional measures that may impact service are imposed. This process is run by the American Arbitration Association and designed just for the Copyright Alert System.
How Do Content Owners Know About My Activity?

CCI’s content partners – companies that own and develop music, movies and TV shows – join peer-to-peer networks and locate the music, movies or TV shows they have created and own. Once they see a title being made available on the peer-to-peer network, they confirm that it is, in fact, copyrighted content.

After confirming that a file appears to have been shared illegally, content owners identify the Internet Protocol (IP) address used by the computer making the file available. Each IP address belongs to an Internet Service Provider (ISP), so content owners notify the ISP to which the address is assigned and the ISP then passes a Copyright Alert on to its customer.

No personal information about consumers is shared between the content owners and ISPs, and ISPs are not involved in the process of identifying copyrighted content.

For more information about what to do if you’ve received a Copyright Alert please see the video:

What Do I Do if I’ve Received a Copyright Alert?
What Do I Do if I’ve Received a Copyright Alert?

The “Alert” you received is meant to inform you that your Internet account may have been used to engage in copyright infringement. We want you to know about the importance of respecting copyright and the potential consequences of inadvertent or purposeful sharing of movies, music and TV shows through peer-to-peer networks. To avoid receiving future Alerts, here are some steps you can take:

If you have been downloading or sharing content illegally please stop doing so immediately.
Make sure that everyone who uses your internet connection knows that you received this alert and advise them to use only legal sources for music, TV shows and movies.
Secure your home wireless network so that only people you authorize are able to use it.

If you receive multiple Alerts – meaning that there may be multiple instances of copyright infringement associated with your account – your ISP may undertake measures that will temporarily affect your Internet experience.

Depending on your service provider, the range of actions may include:

A temporary reduction in your Internet speed;
A temporary downgrade to your Internet service tier or
Redirection to a landing page for a set period of time, until you contact your ISP, or until you complete an online copyright education program

If content is no longer illegally downloaded to or shared from your account, you will not receive additional Alerts.

Note: The Copyright Alert System is designed to protect a subscriber’s ability to access important services, such as Voice over Internet Protocol telephone service (e.g. to call 911), services for disabled subscribers, or home security or medical -monitoring services even during the Mitigation Stage of the program.

That "online copyright education program" portion is an absolutely terrifying portion of an already terrible plan.

What Do I Do if I Think the Alert Was Wrongly Sent?
What Do I Do if I Think the Alert Was Wrongly Sent?

Subscribers who receive multiple Alerts can file for an Independent Review if they feel that Alerts have been sent in error. Initial educational Alerts are not eligible for the Independent Review Process. If infringing activity on your account continues and you reach the mitigation stage (where your ISP is going to take corrective measures), you will be offered the opportunity to ask for a review.

If you believe you have received one or more of the Alerts in error – or the allegations about your account are otherwise inaccurate – you may request an Independent Review. The Independent Review Program is run by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), an organization that provides fair and neutral alternative dispute resolution. In order to file a request for Independent Review, you must do so from your ISP’s system. When you are presented with the review opportunity, your ISP will provide a link to the AAA’s system where you will be able to register and view those Alerts eligible for review. Please click here to see the grounds or accepted “reasons” for requesting an Independent Review.

NOTE: YOU HAVE ONLY FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS AFTER RECEIVING A MITIGATION ALERT TO FILE A REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

Once you choose to have your Alerts reviewed, you will be asked to complete a series of steps, including paying a $35 fee (you may request a hardship waiver). Once a request for review is filed, any possible Mitigation Measures (i.e. an action that would temporarily affect your Internet experience) will be suspended pending the outcome.

If you are successful in your challenge, no Mitigation Measure will be applied, any applicable previous Alerts will no longer be associated with your account, and the $35 filing fee will be refunded. However, if you are not successful, the Mitigation Measure selected by your ISP will be applied.
More Details:

To have your ISP remove the Alerts from your account and decline to apply to any Mitigation Measure, you may be required to prevail in a challenge to more than one Alert. You will be informed of the number of Alerts that need to be invalidated to avoid mitigation when you begin your appeal.
The $35 filing fee may be waived by AAA if you qualify for financial assistance.
This is a non-exclusive procedure, and you still have the right to challenge any action in a court of law.


Don't worry folks, just your local copyright police here to make you're you're not doing any bad copyright stuff. If you are, we'll unilaterally presume guilt - bypassing all court involvement - and punish you accordingly with throttled connections, pass-through pages reminding you that we think you're a pirate, or full on re-education courses! So make sure you're ready to fight some serious burden of proof - as well as fork over $35 at your expense that you may or may not get back.

Fortunately, This only applies to the big players. If you have some of the smaller ISPs, You may find that they're actually on your side.
Luckily Dane Jasper, CEO of the much smaller Sonic.net, was willing to comment on the efforts to make ISPs responsible for online piracy. He told TorrentFreak that ISPs are not setup to police the Internet and that the entertainment industries should look for a solution closer to home.

“ISPs provide an essential utility: connection. We are not equipped to police the actions of individuals,” Jasper says.

“I think history has shown that you cannot solve piracy by force, but that industries need to adapt around it with business models that allow consumers to access the content they want easily and at a not-unreasonable cost.”

(As it turns out, The MPAA/RIAA never even bothered to ask any of the smaller ISPs to join in anyway.)


As anyone familiar with the HADOPI debacle in france can tell you that this was a miserable failure over there and only drove real piracy further underground and raised even greater awareness of anonymizing software, while resulting in scores of false accusations and even a few internet disconnections(to give you an idea of how accurate these tools are, remember that time the RIAA accused a laser printer of file sharing?). However, in true American(disclaimer: I am an American) fashion the copyright industry over here is set out to prove that they can take a terrible idea and do it too on a much grander scale, but because they're doing it, it will somehow turn out differently.

Businesses with open WiFi are terrified of this, because despite ISP insistence that it won't affect them, there's already good indication that this will start murdering open WiFi service in places of business, after receiving accusations based on what any given customer does.

I hope you're ready to potentially be pirates, whether you want to or not!

At this point the EFF has not yet commented on the Monday launch, but I'll post a link when they do.

Donnicton on
«13456716

Posts

  • This content has been removed.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Can't wait to watch this turn into a clusterfuck.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • BigBearBigBear If your life had a face, I would punch it. Registered User regular
    Huh, I'm surprised there aren't a lot of folks talking about this. Seems like a pretty big deal.

  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    BigBear wrote: »
    Huh, I'm surprised there aren't a lot of folks talking about this. Seems like a pretty big deal.
    It made the news a while back when it was announced (a few months ago?) and then died off. I suspect any news it makes this time will simply be off the run encrypted bittorrent/use a vpn/use tor/to mildly clever things with your ip variety. Basically, I think that the people who usually do a bunch of the talking have decided they can win this war on technological means and thus have stopped bothering with trying to reach the general public. That could just be the people I know though.

  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    There's also a good chance that the ISPs are never going to tell anyone until the warnings actually start going out, then you'll see a spontaneous swell of "what the fuck?"s appear all over the internet.

  • archivistkitsunearchivistkitsune Registered User regular
    I'm waiting for assholes, like me, who don't pirate shit to start grabbing IP masking software and running it just to fuck with the clowns that think this is a good idea, while also making a point that this is a terrible idea. Can always run the rationale that they are tired of third parties knowing their IP, when third parties don't have a legitimate reason for knowing it without express permission.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Alert Level 2 is them sending you an 'educational video'?

    Like, what the flying fuck? I'd be angry if I could stop laughing for a few seconds.


    I hate it when distributors call themselves 'Content Owners'. You fuckers don't own jack shit, aside from the right to distribute - and you sure as Hell didn't create any of the content you distribute.

    With Love and Courage
  • This content has been removed.

  • InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. If suing grandmothers didn't work, why would a stern letter work?
    It certainly doesn't work for the UN.

  • This content has been removed.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    This is the most obnoxious fucking thing. And you can bet those "copyright education" courses aren't going to be free.

    Part of me wants to start torrenting just to spite these fucks, but I won't cause ain't nobody got time for that.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    Maybe I don't trust those fucks to get this even remotely right and their "appeal" program is about as awful as could be constructed and still said to be "fair" without breaking up into giggles. Provided the person saying so has a really good poker face.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    Because this is the dumbest way to try to get people to stop pirating things. And if I'm not pirating and I get one of these notices, I'm supposed to pay another 35 bucks to prove to these assholes I'm not doing something?

    Nope, sorry dicks, I give you 68 bucks a month for phone and internet, you're not getting 90 because you're terrible at content providing.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    Because "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a stupid position that's more at home in a fascist regime than a democratic society?

    I don't pirate and don't have a big fear of being wrongly accused, but I think it's a stupid policy and potentially leads to worse policies that actively infringe on fundamental rights.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Invisible wrote: »
    I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. If suing grandmothers didn't work, why would a stern letter work?
    It certainly doesn't work for the UN.

    That's the thing: Most people, even most people selling creative works that are often pirated, don't want to put the genie back in the bottle.

    There are some publishers & some developers that do kick-up a stink about piracy - but, for the most part, it's the retailers and distributors. And piracy is just the scapegoat for the larger issue: they they are slowly becoming irrelevant, and there may come a day when publishers ask, "Wait, why are we signing these mostly terrible-for-us business deals with you, again?"

    Just as an example, from the industry I'm most familiar with: I don't give two fucks (well, I do, but not hugely) if I write a book and you download it from a torrent site rather than buying it, because I've already been paid. Even my publisher, often, doesn't give two fucks, because they've also been paid (most publishers sell to a distributor rather than selling directly to consumers - though there are, of course, exceptions). It's only the retailer / distributor at the end of this food chain that has to compete with pirates, most of the time. And the retailers (for the most part) aren't bitching about it, because they've already diversified their revenue.


    It's sort of unfortunate in that a lot of the old guard that are so scared / opposed to digital distribution have been, for a long time, friends to content creators (again, there are exceptions, blah blah): lobbying on their behalf, setting up solicitation agencies, negotiating with the publishing racket, etc. But their usefulness has just been evaporating as creative industries have modernized, and they've completely refused to keep up with changing trends.

    With Love and Courage
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    It's not even that it's a creepy Big Brothery thing. It's just so goddamn obnoxious.

    The smug wafting off of this plan is just clinging to my underoos.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    It's not even that it's a creepy Big Brothery thing. It's just so goddamn obnoxious.

    The smug wafting off of this plan is just clinging to my underoos.

    You only think it's obnoxious because you haven't been sent the educational video yet!

    EDIT: It's also precious that they send you a write-up, like a supervisor at a retail job.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The Ender wrote: »
    It's not even that it's a creepy Big Brothery thing. It's just so goddamn obnoxious.

    The smug wafting off of this plan is just clinging to my underoos.

    You only think it's obnoxious because you haven't been sent the educational video yet!

    EDIT: It's also precious that they send you a write-up, like a supervisor at a retail job.

    The bright colors, the childish shapes, the soothing cable-in-the-classroom voice speaking in in a non-threatening "what some people people don't realize is that this system is a good thing for everyone" mannerism only vaguely hiding exactly how hard they'll come crashing down on you if they find you guilty of violating the system...


    The informational video alone is something I would fully expect to see while roaming down the sterile white hallway of random video game dystopia #326. Except it's an actual thing that exists and is staring me right in the face from YouTube complete with its 6:264 like:dislike ratio. And it's not a parody.

    I can't possibly dare comprehend what the actual penalty education videos are going to be.

    Donnicton on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Huh so if I break into my neighbors wifi I can have their internet shut off by downloading 6 episodes of something

    Yep this won't cause any problems

  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Invisible wrote: »
    I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. If suing grandmothers didn't work, why would a stern letter work?
    It certainly doesn't work for the UN.

    That's the thing: Most people, even most people selling creative works that are often pirated, don't want to put the genie back in the bottle.

    There are some publishers & some developers that do kick-up a stink about piracy - but, for the most part, it's the retailers and distributors. And piracy is just the scapegoat for the larger issue: they they are slowly becoming irrelevant, and there may come a day when publishers ask, "Wait, why are we signing these mostly terrible-for-us business deals with you, again?"

    Just as an example, from the industry I'm most familiar with: I don't give two fucks (well, I do, but not hugely) if I write a book and you download it from a torrent site rather than buying it, because I've already been paid. Even my publisher, often, doesn't give two fucks, because they've also been paid (most publishers sell to a distributor rather than selling directly to consumers - though there are, of course, exceptions). It's only the retailer / distributor at the end of this food chain that has to compete with pirates, most of the time. And the retailers (for the most part) aren't bitching about it, because they've already diversified their revenue.


    It's sort of unfortunate in that a lot of the old guard that are so scared / opposed to digital distribution have been, for a long time, friends to content creators (again, there are exceptions, blah blah): lobbying on their behalf, setting up solicitation agencies, negotiating with the publishing racket, etc. But their usefulness has just been evaporating as creative industries have modernized, and they've completely refused to keep up with changing trends.
    Well... Yeah? Everyone involved takes a financial risk, but the author and the publisher allows the distributor to buy that risk by accepting a fixed (or a mostly fixed - some royalties are probably still in there) sum of payments. The price for that risk depends on the expected level of return for the distributor.

    You and your publisher can give no fucks because you've, for all practical intents and purposes, paid the distributor so that you don't have to give any fucks. For entirely rational reasons, the price the distributor is willing to charge to take this risk is going to be affected by piracy of your product.


    This isn't to say that a whole lot of distributors aren't going to become irrelevant, and I personally think this is all around a good thing, but part of that process is going to be a transition of financial risk back to creators, with all the fun that entails.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    You just watched a pirated film, spaceman. I mean, assuming you clicked 'play' on the video in the OP, and assuming the OP didn't get permission from the distributors of that film to post it here for discussion.

    Don't worry, though! You're only at Violation Level 1! An educational video and Probationary Agreement Contract has been emailed to you! As soon as we get confirmation that you've watched the video & we receive the signed copy of the contract, we'll stop throttling your bandwidth.


    That is just the smallest part of the problem, but I hope it's one that even you can understand: copy protection laws are outdated, they're internationally inconsistent, and fucking DMCAs are thrown everywhere, at everything in order to try and censor people (or just because the distributors want to be dicks). Posting clips like the one above should be covered under Fair Use, of course, but the reality is that DMCAs are thrown at Fair Use material all of the time, and most companies react to any DMCA filing by automatically assuming guilt. You have to prove your own innocence on YouTube, for example, by filing a counter-notice.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    That educational video is the most Orwellian piece of media I have ever been exposed to.

  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    That educational video is the most Orwellian piece of media I have ever been exposed to.

    The calm but unnaturally even and almost monotone voice, followed at the end with a cheerful lilt as it describes the supposed benefits really makes it.

  • This content has been removed.

  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    I don't pirate. But I'll listen to a lot of songs on Youtube, which I think would count under this. The thing is, many of the songs that I listen to, I've already purchased, or will purchase because of the Youtube songs. I'll listen to the VEVO or whatever if it exists but many bands have inadequate channels.

    That's not bullshit. I just got two Sleigh Bells CDs AND a t-shirt in the mail, which wouldn't have happened without Youtube. And I bought direct from the band's site.

    sig.gif
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Youtube is a tricky beast, I find I'm often listening to songs that are either out of copyright or uploaded by the distributor for newer stuff.

    Unless I'm, like Jurg does, just trawling youtube for stuff I own in iTunes but am too lazy to open up the program to get to.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    They're buggy whip manufacturers. Screw them.

  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    It's not really laziness. I spend a lot of time in the library, and my tracks aren't stored on that.

    Actually, I just looked up Cloud Storage of music. It sounds like a pain in the ass to upload everything. So I might be lazy.

    Jurg on
    sig.gif
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Ah, sorry, didn't mean to cast 'spersions.

    I use youtube very much cause of lazy.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    I would like to know how they are verifying the owner of the material.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    I would like to know how they are verifying the owner of the material.

    Probably by who has more money/lawyers.

    newSig.jpg
  • FrozenzenFrozenzen Registered User regular
    The video in the op is legit scary. And its meant to be serious, which makes it even worse.

  • GrimReeferGrimReefer Registered User new member
    This really isn't going to solve a thing but make a whole lot of people angry. In theory, all one as to do is hide their IP with a VPN or proxy, problem solved. I waited until the last minute to do so, but just signed up for a vpn with TorGuard. costing me a whopping $9, it's alot cheaper than a 35 dollar "addon" to my verizon bill.

    Screw you verizon.

  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    Once again, I'm overjoyed that Cox is the cable provider in my area. No bandwidth restrictions, no 6 strikes Orwellian bullshit. Sure, its fairly pricey ($55 for medium tier internet only), but not having to worry about throttling or this shit is worth an extra few dollars a month.

    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • GrimReeferGrimReefer Registered User new member
    Lucky you... The winners are in alphabetical order: AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon
    Once again, I'm overjoyed that Cox is the cable provider in my area. No bandwidth restrictions, no 6 strikes Orwellian bullshit. Sure, its fairly pricey ($55 for medium tier internet only), but not having to worry about throttling or this shit is worth an extra few dollars a month.

  • Niceguyeddie616Niceguyeddie616 All you feed me is PUFFINS! I need NOURISHMENT!Registered User regular
    So how much does average joe know about this? Because I can image he's gonna be ecstatic when he finds out his internet has been shut off because of that free movie site his friend told him about at work. Seeing as this doesn't seem to have widespread news coverage, and is a blatant violation of personal rights, this is gonna cause a shitstorm the likes of which nobody has ever seen.

    I know so many people like that at my job, I don't envy anyone that works customer service for these companies, their jobs are gonna get a whole lot more painful.

  • ArthilArthil Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    You just watched a pirated film, spaceman. I mean, assuming you clicked 'play' on the video in the OP, and assuming the OP didn't get permission from the distributors of that film to post it here for discussion.

    Don't worry, though! You're only at Violation Level 1! An educational video and Probationary Agreement Contract has been emailed to you! As soon as we get confirmation that you've watched the video & we receive the signed copy of the contract, we'll stop throttling your bandwidth.


    That is just the smallest part of the problem, but I hope it's one that even you can understand: copy protection laws are outdated, they're internationally inconsistent, and fucking DMCAs are thrown everywhere, at everything in order to try and censor people (or just because the distributors want to be dicks). Posting clips like the one above should be covered under Fair Use, of course, but the reality is that DMCAs are thrown at Fair Use material all of the time, and most companies react to any DMCA filing by automatically assuming guilt. You have to prove your own innocence on YouTube, for example, by filing a counter-notice.

    Eh. If YouTube disappeared, i would shed no tears. I'd love to see infringement/fair use heavy social media sites like Facebook and tumblr gone too though, so I'm not going to be persuaded by any perceived injustice here. I view the rights of the copyright holders as much more important than frivolous social media.

    At this point Youtube disappearing would put thousands, possibly even more, people out of a job. And after all the shit they've tried to pull, I couldn't give a damn about the copyright holders.

    PSN: Honishimo Steam UPlay: Arthil
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Calling social media frivolous is insane. It allows multitudes of people to get their viewpoints and works out. Social media is vastly less frivolous due to its importance as a communication device for people than Hollywood blockbusters are.

  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Calling social media frivolous is insane. It allows multitudes of people to get their viewpoints and works out. Social media is vastly less frivolous due to its importance as a communication device for people than Hollywood blockbusters are.

    I mean, it's only represented one of the most significant paradigm shifts in how human beings interact in our lifetimes and helped decide multiple national elections.

    Pretty frivolous IMO

  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    I finally watched that video.

    Jesus Christ

    Did the people who made that think that workplace sexual harassment videos are the pinnacle of educational videos? All that video was missing were reenactments.

    Creepy monotone lady voice didn't help either.

    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
This discussion has been closed.