Seriously? I can't spread out my response over 2 tweets? If you want to reply with 2 tweets you can do the same. If the character limit was still 140 characters, yours would be split across multiple tweets too. It's how I use the platform. A thought per tweet in multiple tweets.
Conversation
You cannot take this approach to debate and then get mad at me for needing to respond in multiple tweets:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gall
You keep repeating the claim I'm misrepresenting DRM or falsely calling it DRM but I think the majority of people would agree with my definition.
2
I'm hardly the only person referring to these kinds of anti-fraud / anti-cheat mechanisms as DRM. It's standard practice to refer to anti-cheat / anti-modding as DRM:
pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Digital_r
I'm not the one being misleading and dishonest. That's you folks. Consistently now.
1
Replying to
No, you flunk EFF's DRM definition (eff.org/issues/drm). We do not prevent you from using your purchased+owned hardware and software as you see fit. We simply don't share ad revenue with you if safetynet says "nope!"
Without further explication you arrantly excuse ad fraud.
1
Replying to
That's one form of DRM. It's not the entire picture. Software trying to enforce restrictions on usage and trying to prevent it from being bypassed is what myself and many others refer to as DRM and it includes anti-fraud and anti-cheat mechanisms. To me, that's what it means.
2
1
You're trying to police how myself and many others commonly use the language and the way that I've always chosen to use Twitter of sending multiple tweets, each with a separate thought just like writing a commit message. It's how I use it and will continue to use it indefinitely.
1
Replying to
No, Twitter polices by banning selectively. They're the cops. You and I are fellow citizens. I'm just replying to you. Mute me if you must; I'm sorely tempted to mute you. You have not corrected or retracted any of your errors ("enforced viewing", "the site with different ads").
1
Replying to
Those aren't errors. You're trying to spin things to make those distinctions, when in reality someone neutral is far more likely to agree with my interpretation rather than the corporate spin.
1
Replying to
No, you wrote those words, and they are false. Don't try to evade now by arguing unspecified "distinctions".
What "enforced viewing"? Ads are opt in.
What "the site with different ads"? We do not replace ads in pages.
You're in a hole. Stop digging!
1
Replying to
You're projecting exactly what you're doing onto me as if I'm the one doing it. It's ridiculous. It's you being incredibly dishonest, misleading and going out of the way to spin things. You're increasingly making the case that you're a nasty person and Brave is a nasty company.
Replying to
I'm citing your words and refuting them. You are not responding directly, rather misdirecting to "tu quoque" at worse, or vague "distinctions" you have you to state at best. Do better.
1
Replying to
No, you're making dishonest claims and projecting what you're doing onto me. You haven't refuted anything. You've repeatedly made false statements and tried to spin things in a ridiculous way while calling the direct way of talking about it without the spin dishonest...
Bonus points for once again posting 2 tweets despite freaking out about it when I do it. It's insane how ridiculously hypocritical and dishonest you're being throughout this conversation. I'm not surprised. You're just reinforcing my opinion that the software is problematic.