Malloc

That’s a good cat name!

if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn’t want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?

It’s more like, should be be forced to sell them to someone else who will put their own messages on the t-shirt with his face.

As to the cattle brand (and less so the t-shirts), the cattle are valuable property regardless of his branding. The social media account is the branding. To forceably sell the cattle is quite different from forceably selling the brand with his name.

It goes further: the real value of his social media handle, I imagine, is the number of subscribers it has. Are subscribers an asset to be bought and sold? Capitalism thinks so. But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.

If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn’t have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to?

The money they earned - exactly! Not forcing them to keep doing porn. Of course this case isn’t extreme like that.

how much of his ‘likeness’ is being sold is debatable to begin with

No it’s not. The value is that it is (was) his Alex Jones account, presumably with his subscribers too. Or are there a bunch of other Alex Jonses clamouring to have the handle freed so they can have the name fresh for themselves? I’m sure they’d like it; but that’s not the value in this case.

Wipe his Twitter account - if you think deplatforming is an appropriate action. Let another person buy the name fresh (and be sued if they use it to pretend they are him). Take his real assets and sell them. But taking his Twitter account as is and selling it seems, IMHO, the wrong sort of capitalism.

That’s a fair point. It seems rather awkward. Selling off the assets of said talk show, easy decision. Selling the brand, though, if it’s tied to your person / personal name, that seems dubious. Especially against the named person’s will.

For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent. I can sell permission for my face to be on your t-shirt, but being forced to seems wrong. In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.

The precedent troubles me. That a media account in a personal name, even if through that one does commercial or objectionable things, can become a commodity to buy and sell - and be forced to sell.

The same precedent applies to ordinary people too. Should a debt collector acquire your Facebook page? Because you used Facebook marketplace it’s now a business asset?

I don’t think that changes it. He uses the likeness of his face also; if some ad company wants to buy the rights to the likeness of his face is he forced to sell?

True I didn’t read the article though.

This seems very bizarre to me. Is the argument, someone could make money off your account therefore it’s an asset that can be sold off? Next I suppose we should sell his body off into prostitution.

Still, nice to see Lemmy wholeheartedly supporting capitalism for once…

Ooh, I know, next force him to sell his Steam account!

Do you make a beeping noise when you back out of the bathroom after?

I was going for the Harrys Truman, but this is much better.

Tsch, that’s the opening sequence.

“You have broken free! Now what do you want to do?”

Ooh, living life dangerously.

I would not like to have that as a finger habit!

If you read the clues, yes.

Then it proves none of us can observe, or it would have collapsed!

Also I feel The Quantum Duck should be a James Bond-esque spy, but a duck.

Erm, not sure this is a nsfw space…

Failed. It asked for one duck.

Then the difference is really that someone else is handing the security, right? At the end of the day, there’s an encrypted file somewhere, and a TOTP only protects a particular connection by network.

KeepassXC handles TOTP.

Is there no one in the replies here who thinks women have a legitimate discomfort, or unsafe feeling, having men around in a toilet space, even if the men aren’t actively being harmful?

No women here who had difficult upbringings with men? No men whose daughter or sister or female friend feels uncomfortable letting certain barriers down around strange men?

Of course there is an important discussion about how bathroom culture changes as society’s acceptance of trans people changes.

But, OP, I think what you would do best beyond what you said, is to acknowledge that some women have a legitimate concern, even if there’s not an easy answer. Once you have that point of agreement - once the other person can see you care about the concern they’re coming from - you have a foundation for discussing a real problem and/or solution.

Otherwise you’re just buttimg heads to win, and asking an internet echo chamber to adjudicate.

99% of people don’t actually care if you’re not being a creep.

I don’t think that’s true. I think there’s a lot of women who don’t feel comfortable/safe in a vulnerable space with men around. And even though one mightn’t actually undress outside the individual toilet cubicles, it’s still - to many - that kind of space.

I think it’s important to respect women’s (and men’s) desire for privacy - even when not all women feel the same need for privacy - through this cultural change of who uses what bathroom.

And that goes doubly when you expand beyond a particular subset of America to different cultures and people with different experiences.

I saw an article about one trained on research papers. (Built by Meta, maybe?) It also spewed out garbage: it would make up answers that mimicked the style of the papers but had its own fabricated content! Something about the largest nuclear reactor made of cheese in the world…