The issue is what mechanism could be used to force Google to pay, but also prevents Google from saying "yeah, we just won't provide any links to those sites at all".

Are they going to force Google to index those sites against their will? If so, how? Even if they could, would you really want that? Will it be just as cool for Russia to force Google to index whatever it wants, too? Are they just going to take money from Google no matter what, and give it to the news sites, even if Google isn't indexing them?

Sorry for the delayed response. I didn't see a notification.

Google is pointing out that the news sites need google more than google needs the news sites.

This sort of thing happens every once in a while; some country's news organizations think that google should have to pay them for the privilege of helping people find their sites. Google responds by blacklisting news sites from that country. The news sites suffer more than google does, and they reverse the decision.

The best we can hope for, under the circumstances, is that Roberts comes to deeply regret that decision, as Trump turns on him.

I don't think you've fully realized what is going on. The message Trump is sending is "if you do my bidding, there will be no consequences". The law is now a tool to protect those people Trump wants protected, and a weapon to hurt those Trump wants hurt.

Classic fascism. Buckle up.

Well, that's a good point but I still think there are better services than Twitter/microblogging for that. Like our old friend RSS

Sure, but you can get that with something more long-form, too; it's not exclusive to Twitter/microblogging .

Keeping in mind that I'm just giving personal opinions, I found Discovery to be too... over acted? Maybe that was just how it was written but the end result, for me, was that I was constantly rolling my eyes while watching.

Picard seemed okay but in the end I didn't like the obvious appeals to nostalgia, for me it felt like it leaned too heavily on it instead of trying to stand on its own as a good show.

I have no idea if my experiences align with the broader community or not, but I found myself forcing myself to watch each respective show so I didn't bother watching when a new season came out.

Please don't take my comment as anything but me sharing my experiences with someone else who is a fan of the franchise.

SNW I'm totally on board for, though. And I was hesitant about Lower Decks at first but it's really a good show, imo. It's so good that it has me questioning my decision to ignore The Orville for being too silly.

I would argue that the format incentivizes short quips and discussions lacking nuance in favor of brevity, and yes, therefore it's "bad" (to use their term) to use Twitter even if musk wasn't turning it into Truth Social.

Well, arguably the microblogging format does have some intrinsic disadvantages.

I have a golden doodle and he will destroy almost any toy in a few minutes. The only exception is those solid rubbery dog toys, which take him several hours to start chipping away at.

They're probably fine but if you are really concerned, call a local veterinarian office and ask.

Well, maybe free time doesn't happen in the first year, but I was a nuke; quals weren't all that bad from what I remember.

There might be a choking hazard depending on how they break up? A vet would be able to tell you more definitely.

What's wrong with writing poetry on an aircraft carrier? I can't speak to being on an aircraft carrier, but on a submarine you are not in war mode 24/7; there's time to do ordinary things. (usually).

Let me guess: Tommy here hasn't ever served in the military, right? All he knows about it is from movies?

PSA standard ("real") tennis balls are bad for dogs, especially their teeth.. https://sierraveterinary.com/2022/03/29/the-dangers-of-tennis-balls/

Are you speaking legally or morally when you say someone "aught" to do something?

You most certainly can. The discussion about whether copyright applies to the output is nuanced but certainly valid, and notably separate from whether copyright allows copyright holders to restrict who or what gets trained on their work after it's released for general consumption.

The article is literally about someone suing to prevent their art from being used for training. That's the topic at hand.

Are you confused, or are you trying to shoehorn a different but related discussion into this one?

I was under the impression we were talking about using copyright to prevent a work from being used to train a generative model. There's nothing in copyright that says anything about training anything. I'm not even convinced there should be.

There's nothing in copyright law that covers this scenario, so anyone that says it's "absolutely" one way or the other is telling you an opinion, not a fact.

In that case, I agree. There's no sane reason for weed to be illegal in a country where alcohol is not.