open ur eyez lyk I opened mine. (It's only the real world.)

'”Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA+) practices or any other unnatural behavior”

It’s highly likely that pressure to marry and have children will increase and can be enforced through institutional means (arrests, trials, jail time, etc).

Please, all eyes on our LGBTQ+ siblings in Niger. They deserve our unwaverin’ support.

"Us? Oh, of *course* our Dachshund sleeps inside- we just let him out in the morning and make sure he comes back for dinner. He just does his own thing, no worries."

"Um, you know it's not humane to keep a chihuahua confined to an apartment? They're dogs, they're natural predators. They need to experience hunting behaviors or they get depressed. No we don't leash ours, he absolutely hates it, we just let him come and go whenever."

Yall get how fucking stupid that sounds, right? So stop letting your goddamn cats get eaten and attacked and infected and hit by cars

A toddler would probably love full unattended access to the neighborhood too, but we don't do that either, do we

“Dutch non-profit group Stichting Massaschade & Consument is suing the company for roughly $450 million in damages, alleging that killing discs will hand PlayStation a monopoly over its digital games.”

"The end of physical discs removes the last place where a PlayStation game could still be bought and sold at a competitive price," Lucia Melcherts, chair of SMC, said in a statement to wccftech.

"No discs means no second-hand market and no alternative to the PlayStation Store, so from 2028, Sony alone decides what a game costs and even how long you are allowed to use it.

That is exactly the harm our Fair PlayStation claim is about: a price can never be fair when the buyer is left with no ownership and no alternative."

“Melcherts is referring to the robust PlayStation terms of service, which explicitly lays out that "the software is licensed to you, not sold." Digital purchases are not the same as physical.

You are not buying a copy of a game, you are buying a non-exclusive personal license to play the game, which can be revoked at any moment without compensation.

Combined with a closed ecosystem in which only the PlayStation Store is made available, the only option consumers have is to pay whatever Sony demands, without ever having the guarantee of true ownership.“

“Sony is now facing regulatory action in Mexico over their decision to stop making PlayStation game discs.”

“Federal Representative Iraís Reyes and Senator Luis Donaldo Colosio are filing a complaint against their National Antitrust Commission.

While Rep. Reyes and Sen. Colosio are both members of the political party Movimiento Ciudadano, they are filing this complaint as private citizens.

However, they both clearly understand the situation from a gamer/consumer perspective.

Rep. Reyes talked about how PlayStation gamers would only be able to buy their games directly from PlayStation.

“If discs disappear, anyone who owns a PlayStation will no longer be able to choose where to buy their games and will be forced to purchase them exclusively through Sony’s store,” Reyes said.

Subsequently, Sen. Colosio pointed out how local retailers, like Liverpool, Sanborns, and GamePlanet, would be harmed by this move.

This move may be a prelude to other political actions, including legislation.

Their complaint refers to this as a relative monopolistic practice that violates Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Law.

But then again, since Mexico’s antitrust commission only started last year, this issue could show how powerful it actually is.

If Mexico does take action, it could force the EU to reexamine if they should regulate Sony as well.”

all digital future

These two law makers warn of a all digital future, referencing when 500 digital movies were removed from stores and libraries

“According to the complaint, Sony’s strategy could create an excessive concentration of power by allowing the company to simultaneously control the console hardware, the digital storefront, game distribution, and pricing.

“Sony would become both the referee and the player within its own ecosystem, and we know what can happen when a single company controls every part of the market,” Reyes stated.

Colosio added that the transition to an all-digital ecosystem also ignores infrastructure disparities across the country.

“By forcing everything to become digital, the assumption is that everyone has access to reliable high-speed internet, when we know that isn’t the reality throughout Mexico,” he said.”

TLDR;

California residents William Flemming and Devin Rose are attempting to represent all nationwide YouTube premium users in a lawsuit

The lawsuit says that sponsored parts of YouTube videos are ads and therefore, YouTube premium “no ads” promise is false advertising

full thing

“The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on July 14, was brought by California residents William Flemming and Devin Rose, who are seeking to represent a nationwide class of YouTube Premium subscribers.

According to the lawsuit, YouTube repeatedly markets Premium as offering “ad-free” viewing with “no interruptions,” encouraging consumers to pay a monthly subscription fee in exchange for a viewing experience free of advertising.”

what’s being argued

“The plaintiffs argue YouTube Premium does not deliver the experience it promises because subscribers continue to encounter paid sponsorships inserted into videos by creators.

The complaint cites several examples, including a Theo Von podcast that pauses an interview with actor Kevin James for a Pepsi promotion,

a Kallmekris true crime video interrupted by a Surfshark VPN sponsorship, and a Markiplier gameplay video that transitions into a NordVPN advertisement just seconds after it begins.

Another example highlighted in the lawsuit involves The Diary Of A CEO, where sponsored portions of episodes are explicitly labeled “Ads” by the creator.”

The complaint says that these act the same way as ads and therefore, invalidates the YouTube premium promise of no ads

“The lawsuit also points to YouTube’s comparison between Premium and Premium Lite.

While Premium Lite is advertised as having “Most videos are ad-free,”

the complaint says Premium is promoted as having “No ads” across all YouTube videos,

creating a clear distinction that consumers rely on when choosing between the two subscription tiers”

YouTube help center

“YouTube’s Help Center states that Premium subscribers may still encounter creator “branding or promotions,” including promotional links, merchandise, memberships and similar content.”

The complaint says that information is part of a different thing and not part of the premium terms of service

“The plaintiffs also argue consumers would reasonably interpret creator promotions differently from paid third-party advertisements for products and services such as Pepsi, NordVPN or Surfshark.