This is weird to see, given I just finished watching all the Resident Evil movies the other night.

Why does it need a field for location and email?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecos_field#Format

https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/4/html/introduction_to_system_administration/s2-acctsgrps-files#ftn.idm140081194521120

What are you getting at me for? You asked a question and I answered.

I don’t care about any new gecos fields because they’re optional.

Because back in the 60s and 70s, people wanted to know whose print jobs were running and where the printed documents should be delivered.

Not the person you’re talking to, but it seems like a stretch that some little nightclub will want to build and maintain their own smart contract infrastructure. It’s not just issuing the tickets, it’s also building and distributing the tools to quickly validate the hundreds/thousands of attendees every night.

For example, it’s not enough just to validate that everyone at the gate has an NFT. I could enter the venue with a valid token, and then transfer it to my friend still outside once I’m through the door. So now the bouncer needs to track what tickets have already been scanned, and you probably want it to update off-chain (faster and no gas fees).

Not that I can pretend to know what already goes in to a venue supporting TicketMaster, but I figure there’s got to be a reason why these middlemen were wanted in the first place. That reason is probably about venues wanting to do music and not tech support.

You make a good point, and one that I didn’t necessarily consider.

Maybe it’s naïveté, but I do still imagine this case could be hypothetically won without trampling section 230. Mostly because we have actual evidence that Meta designs their products to be harmful: Whistleblower leaks and books hace clearly demonstrated that management works to juice profits at the cost of users. Eg: Collecting data about users with body-image issues and selling it to beauty advertisers. When you can point to actual emails between decision-makers saying “Ignore this problem, it makes too much money for us to solve”, I’d hope the case would revolve around not letting people prioritize shitty business decisions at the cost of people. Then theoretically, as long as you don’t have a bunch of lemmy mods coordinating similar practices, the case wouldn’t apply to them.

Hmm, now that I type it out, that’s definitely a naïve take. I don’t expect to see actual justice against corporations in the USA any time soon.

• Customizability (hotline numbers, etc)
• Independence from billionaire-owned supply chains
• Encourages and strengthens local support networks

Seems like the case is about inherently addictive features of the website, and not about hosted content.

the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230