The backlash against the world’s most hated font may finally be ending.
    • koavfOPM
      217·
      28 days ago

      Why would you post the entirety of an article that is protected by copyright?

      • Kuori [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        341·
        28 days ago

        why would you contribute to making the Internet a worse place by enforcing copyright?

        you basically posted a blank wall for people to stare at. meanwhile the user you are upset with contributed what you should have in the first place.

            • koavfOPM
              16·
              28 days ago

              Why do you think it’s okay to take someone else’s work and just copy and paste it wherever?

                • koavfOPM
                  1·
                  28 days ago

                  Tell it to the author of the article. It’s his choice to make.

                • koavfOPM
                  1·
                  28 days ago

                  Okay. It’s still a copyright owned by someone and it’s not freely licensed to just post wherever. I can’t control who assigned whatever copyright to others.

              • TC_209 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                17·
                28 days ago

                Subscribing to the Atlantic won’t put any money in Simon Garfield’s pocket, but freely sharing his article will provide promotion for his book about the history of Comic Sans. Why do you think it’s okay to deny Simon Garfield some potential book sales?

        • koavfOPM
          13·
          28 days ago

          It’s not a blank wall: if you want to read it, you can do so legitimately. There’s no reason to rehost someone else’s work. How would you feel if you worked hard on something and someone just decided “I can copy it and paste it wherever I want”?

          • REgon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            24·
            28 days ago

            I’d feel fine, I don’t write for the purpose of making money, I write because it makes me happy. When I get paid for writing I get paid no matter the amount of clicks I get. All my art is released under Creative Commons or whatever the fuck it’s called. Why should I be anything other than happy that some internet hobbyists decided to share my work? You’re acting like this person is being robbed of something

            • koavfOPM
              1·
              28 days ago

              I also release everything creative I’ve ever done to the public: that’s my choice. The author of the piece didn’t make that choice. Why is it wrong to respect that?

            • koavfOPM
              1·
              28 days ago

              It’s really cool that that is what you choose to do. Neat.

          • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            351·
            28 days ago

            They’re not posting that article in full because they’re making money from it or taking credit for it. They’re posting it because I can’t read the article you submitted. I can’t comment on your post that you didn’t even bother summarising without buying a subscription to The Atlantic and Lemmy isn’t a website for Atlantic subscribers.

            When I moderated subreddits and people posted full articles, nobody batted an eye on a corporate website full of neoliberals because even they understood it’s a basic public service. If that post is supposed to be anything more than a headline, people need to be able to read it to engage with it. And that’s reddit. This is specifically a project that rebels against that corporate control and you’re that devoted to someone else’s profits. Presumably not your own unless you work for The Atlantic, but for someone else’s business that had almost $100m in revenue last year.

            Why else would you make your own post unreadable in your own subcommunity unless 𝔢𝔫𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔠𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔯𝔲𝔩𝔢𝔰 filled some hole inside of you? What else would this possibly achieve on a website where almost all other paywalled article posts have a comment helpfully allowing people to read it? The alternative to it being pathological for you is that you’re stupid.

            • koavfOPM
              15·
              28 days ago

              Why can’t you read the article?

              If we’re talking about a movie, should someone just pirate the movie and post it so that we can all talk about it without having to get a ticket to see it?

              “The alternative to it being pathological for you is that you’re stupid.”

              There’s no reason to be rude.

        • koavfOPM
          23·
          28 days ago

          I did. I would remove any comment that’s just name-calling. How is that constructive? That won’t lead to any meaningful discussion. If you see someone else just calling you a name and doing nothing else, let me know and I’ll delete that, too.

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind
    81·
    28 days ago

    Critics argued that Comic Sans was a font for children’s-party invitations, with a promise of fun and games.

    I mean i do know few physicists and mathematicians, those that aren’t dead inside or a balls of frustration are usually like “this is fun and games”