Just reiterating what others have said but… if you have an IP you like and want more of it in the future (regardless of medium!) then its success in any other medium will likely impact whether or not you get more.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where:

• Money matters more to most IP holders than the IP itself

• New IP is seen as risky

• Those in charge don’t have to take responsibility for their failures

If there is a commercial failure of an IP, there is a good chance that its failure will be seen as the IP generally failing or falling out of poluarity instead of the failure to best utilize the IP that likely occurred. As a result, priorities will often shift away from the IP to something else in all mediums (ex. ASOIAF/GOT). Unless the IP is absolutely gangbusters in all other mediums, it will suffer. Similarly, success will likely lead to more utilization of the IP in any medium.

It’s unlikely that the IP owner will sell or license the IP in the near future because at one point it was popular and new IP is hard to make. It would be better to hoard IP and maybe try again in a decade when they need a trick up their sleeve. Plus, another failure might damage the IP even more.

Admittedly, I’m not attached to any brands or IP in particular and so I’m not invested really. I just makes me a little sad when some IP I thought well of has this happen… or when the person who benefits from the IP turns out to be a person I’d rather not give money to. Occasionally I’ll ponder what might have been if things had gone differently and feel a little bad.

Most big game corps just shutter studios, usually letting them know via the grapevine after a board meeting or twitter post…

Despite Public Radio being creates by an act of congress, good old Ronnie Reagan slashed it funding in 1980. Currently, it gets ~25% of its funding from the government, but only a fraction of that is direct funding. Most funding comes through member stations getting funding from state or Federal sources, or from state funded universities. That means it needs corporate or nonprofit sponsors that can impact the incentives of a media organization.

PBS gets a bigger chunk, ~40% if it’s funding from State, Federal, and educational sources. Still more dependent on external funding, such as corporate advertising, than internal.

With the power of generative AI and MAGA chucklefucks, now some bastard will just claim its a deepfake or a deepstate.

Why do ordinary people seem so unprotected against these shady practices

Assuming you are in the USA, it’s fundamentally because our politics is fueled by private money. The “haves” spend lots of money to make rules that protect and enrich themselves at the expense of the “have nots”. The rich get richer, and the rest of us get a larger share of the burden.

The rich then spend more of their money convincing everyone else that some minority group of their fellow “have nots” are to blame and let us fight amongst ourselves. They starve us but leave us with just enough left to lose so that the price of doing something about it is too high (quitting, losing health insurance, getting arrested at a protest, etc) for most of us to bear.

how can we change this?

Get money out of politics. Get the public to stop blaming their fellow have nots and demand change from the haves.

How does one person even start to address these issues?

Have empathy for and help your neighbors if you can, especially when they take the risks required to push for actual change. Talk to people. Organize. Support/start unions or a mutual aid organization. Go to local government meetings and make your voice heard. Run for local office.

Its easy for a small group of wealthy organizations to tilt specific elections or politics in their favor. It’s much harder them to do that in 1,000+ small communities across the nation.

This assumes that the protesters won’t vote for Harris come election time.

Protests are important - especially obnoxious, inconvenient ones. If Harris and the general public can’t ignore the protesters, Harris is more likely to act on the protested issue instead of sidestepping it.

Fundraisers and charities, when you have a lot money, are rarely acts of charity. They tend to be PR campaigns and power plays.

Honestly, even when the acts have good intentions, they are often quite damaging. The involvement of the wealthy in charity is very similar to their involvement in politics. Their wealth buys influence and gives them a disproportionate say that allows them to ignore and overrule the will of the people and sometimes even reality.

For example, look into the impact of Bill Gates’s “acts of charity” in the education space. He poured money into charter programs that negatively impacted public education. Later studies showed that his programs were not particularly effective.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that a very rich person is convinced by some charlatan that they found the a means to produce free energy. The wealthy person throws tons of money at the idea. How many talented people will be taken from other legit programs because the paycheck at Bullshit Energy Nonprofit is better? These rich people are successful and think they know bestr. Their money ensures they get treated like experts because money makes things happen whether or not those things are helpful.

They’ll just raise your rent to pay for cleaning and new security cameras. The man is quite adept at the game of keeping you down.

Market socialism can be distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because most models of market socialism propose complete and self-regulating systems, unlike the mixed economy. While social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies, and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.

I mind if you are simultaneously linking to a Wikipedia article defining it as being completely self regulated, lacking any form of social welfare.

Capitalism’s problem is that, ultimately, it’s “compete” or die because you need to work to afford to live. I’m not necessarily advocating for the nationalization of all industries or a command economy. There can be competition, but the playing field needs to be leveled first. Workers owning the enterprise as a collective is a step in the right direction but that still leaves the door open for “B2B” exploitation when an enterprise’s failure can mean its workers now cannot afford to live.

A theory to use as a standard for regulation assuming you are restrained to a capitalist system, maybe.

But it is a system that can be maintained with appropriate regulation.

The nature of Capitalism requires that some have while others have not. Many of those among the capitalist class will use the full force of their power to obstruct and corrupt regulation, find loopholes, and obtain more power. Regulatory capture, pivoting to the bleeding edge of industry where nobody knows how to regulate yet (financial derivatives, crypto, AI), or just leading a coup - they’ll find a way.

The only way is something that resembles socialism, but you can call it “appropriate regulation” if it makes you feel better. Sure, competition has its place… but it doesn’t belong anywhere near basic human needs.

I think perfect competition is impossible. The incentive is not to compete fairly, it’s to maximize profits and the most effective ways to maximize profits are anticompetitive, exploitative, or both. Anyone arguing for a society built around such a system is either naive or trying to buy more time with false hopes.

Virtually every condition in the ideal scenario is a barrier for profit, and I don’t think any civilization has managed even a single one of those conditions. There will always be actors looking to take advantage of any loopholes or create unregulated markets.

It’s just not a system that is sustainable. The incentives are simply wrong and the society built around those incentives can’t maintain a system of perfect conditions even if one were to exist.

Demonstrating the inherent contradiction of capitalism in practice.

Capitalism is allegedly the only fair way to price things, via the “Price Mechanism”. However, capitalists have simultaneously been creaming their pants at the idea of charging specific people or people in specific situations more, because they can get more profit, in service of Profit Maximization.

I’m sure I’ll get a lecture on how they are not at all mutually exclusive but I don’t care, honestly. It’s either going to price gouge when the customer is perceived to be in more need (low battery pricing for taxi apps) or have a price based on the customer’s ability to pay… at which point why not socialism?

Essentially, the capitalist will support what is best for themselves and make up reasons why it theoretically might benefit consumers (but not really).

nowhere am I finding any indication that anyone is earnestly making the argument that Israel has the right to rape prisoners.

It literally happened a little over a week ago.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinian-prisoner-alleged-rape-sde-teinman-abuse-protest/

Paragraphs 5-7. I recall there being a video of the moment but I don’t know if it is included in the linked article.

A member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, speaking Monday at a meeting of lawmakers, justified the rape and abuse of Palestinian prisoners, shouting angrily at colleagues questioning the alleged behavior that anything was legitimate to do to “terrorists” in custody.

Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky was asked as he defended the alleged abuse whether it was legitimate, “to insert a stick into a person’s rectum?”

“Yes!” he shouted in reply to his fellow parliamentarian. “If he is a Nukhba [Hamas militant], everything is legitimate to do! Everything!”

…

nowhere am I finding any indication that anyone is earnestly making the argument that Israel has the right to rape prisoners.

An Israeli lawmaker was asked if anal rape with a stick was legitimate and the Israeli lawmaker replied “Yes” and clarified that “Everything is legitimate to do” so long as the recipient is Hamas. Is he in the majority? No, but someone is earnestly making the argument.

Here’s the thing. The fact that I’m making the effort to demonstrate this utterly fucked up reality is, I guarantee, going to convince someone here that I’m antisemitic. I don’t think it will matter to them that I have family that is Jewish or that I’m 50% Ashkenazi by blood.

The fact that this is happening, and that any Israeli lawmaker would defend it, literally makes Jews worldwide less safe. It gives real, actual antisemitism more perceived legitimacy.

Edit: Video Link. Couldn’t find anything outside twitter/insta/tiktok, none of which I ever visit directly. Kind if telling that American news outlets don’t have it posted anywhere I could easily find but whatever. While I’ve had folks attest to the accuracy of the translation, I don’t speak Hebrew so feel free to continue to pretend it isn’t happening.

https://x.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1817904053462196523

Oh man. While I was never a huge fan, I had the Tonka Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior Plush/Pillow things. Is that what you mean?

Yeah, Hogan is another guy who is just nuts. I think he’s always been a piece of shit. I heard he notified management of Ventura’s talk of a wrestler’s union which killed it before it could gain any traction.

As a nerdy kid with longish hair and few male role models, I really, really looked up to this guy. Hercules, Xena, Kull, and then Andromeda.

He fell off my radar for a while but I was pleasantly entertained when I found him in the Mythica series. I’d always thought well of him.

Eventually I heard about God Is Not Dead and looked into the rest of his more right wing work… Its really heartbreaking when people you respected or even idolized as a kid turn out to be so… gross and just… weird.

Now he again pops up on my radar with stupid shit like this. So sad.

What happens if the electors get corrupt and decide to vote Trump against the majority of the population?

It is the case that electors are required to vote for the nominee that they pledged to vote for. If you pledged to vote A as an elector you are obligated to vote A. However, as I understand from skimming CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON (2019), it is on pain of penalty…

There might be more to it but I don’t have time to read it all.

Also, it doesn’t really matter what the rules say. The current right wing majority of the SCOTUS doesn’t give a flying fuck about laws, rules, or precedents if they don’t support their views so who the fuck knows.

I think what people are feeling is what has been often described as enshitification. The definition of that term as given by its creator doesn’t match the context in which I see it increasingly used. However, I think that the phenomenon that people often use it to describe is what is killing consumer confidence.

If the economy is actually serving consumers, then those at the top are making less profits. This is unacceptable. They have to keep making money. They have to keep increasing how much money they make. They have to keep increasing the rate at which they increase the money they make. If they’re not, then they are stagnating according to investors. This is incompatible with the survival of normal people. Growth cannot be infinite.

So the companies consolidate and find corners to cut and we absolutely feel it even if it doesn’t show in the numbers. They find new and creative ways to create “shrinkflation”. They don’t have to literally shrink the product - that’s too obvious. They can instead alter the formula, find cheaper low quality components, squeeze their workers harder or outsource labor, stand behind their products just a little less by updating wording to sound the same but technically promise less, add a little friction to their warranty process, hedge against inevitable future failure with no class action clauses or forced arbitration in their terms…

It feels like every company is doing something like that these days… and if they aren’t, they are being abused or bought by a company that is.

How can confidence then not be down?

If Democrats follow that playbook it only legitimizes it, giving a future Republican administration the green light to do it as well.

I 100% agree in spirit. However…

giving a future Republican administration the green light to do it

One of the many problems with American politics is that the Republicans do not need legitimacy or a green light. They’ll fucking do it anyway. They’ll also cry foul if they catch a whiff of a democrat thinking about doing it. Or they’ll just accuse a democrat of doing it and they’ll just use that as justification for doing it first.

They know their policies are wildly unpopular and that they won’t even be able to maintain power by illegitimate minority rule, which they have been doing for decades now.

It’s grab power now or regroup and accept that they’ve lost the culture war. They are not going to go quietly, as recent events and Project 2025 has made crystal clear.

[How] do you think Trump, with the powers newly granted to the office he’s again running for, will act in his second term?

There could have been better worlds

So… because Trump didn’t get unhinged to the point where he started a nuclear war, you aren’t worried.

• How did you feel about refusing to concede in the 2020 election and creating uncertainty and doubt about the electoral process among a not insignificant minority of voters?

• How about inciting an angry mob to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power on January 6th?

• How did you feel about hoarding and hiding classified documents so that he could show them off to impress his friends and guests? Maybe even sell them if times are tough?

• How about strong-arming the Republican party and installing his family to run it?

• How do you feel about how his SCOTUS has changed the fundamentals of the US government?

• The Chevron deference?

• Bribery?

• Presidential “immunity” for official acts?

• How do you feel about the loss of the right to have an abortion?

Do you think Trump, with the powers newly granted to the office he’s again running for, will act in his second term? Where is your line?