> I find it fascinating that some users here seem to be attached to the concept of an alpha male, reality be damned.
But the reality is that wolf packs have alpha males. Both in the wild and in zoos. The article itself clearly states so. The only difference is that in the wild, the alpha male is the biological father of his offsprings that make up the wolf pack. While in the zoo, the alpha male is generally unrelated to the other wolves.
We know alpha males and alpha females exists. The article doesn't deny that fact. It just sneakily twists the difference of alpha males in zoos and nature as an "alpha male myth".
> It’s clear that this meets some emotional/psychological need for them.
It doesn't. I could give a rats ass whether a wolf pack has a male and female alpha ( aka father and mother ). The only ones emotionally upset about alpha males are people like you who for some odd reason want to deny it's existence, reality be damned.
It's ridiculous that those denying reality are the one's accusing others of denying reality.
> The fact the wolf alpha male theory was wrong doesn't imply we don't have alpha dominance for men.
It isn't wrong. The headline is intentionally misleading and the article is just woke nonsense. Read it for yourself.
What the article is really saying that the alpha in a zoo wolfpack is different than an alpha in a wild wolfpack because a zoo wolfpack is between non-related wolves whilest in the wild, wolfpacks are composed of family members ( alpha father/alpha mother and children ).
There are alpha in wolf packs ( zoos and wild ). Just like in a human family the father/mother are alphas while in a gang, the alpha is usually a non-related individual.
The "myth" isn't that the alpha doesn't exist. The "myth" is about the relation of the alpha to the rest of the pack.
> but stating facts of the individual events can’t actually be copyrighted, regardless of what the nfl and olympics say in their disclaimer.
That's interesting. Does that mean someone could go to an NFL game and broadcast the play by play of the game? Stating facts like: "It's 4th and goal, mahomes drops back and passed to kelce for a touchdown". You could legally broadcast that?
Legally? As in do you have a right to? No. You accepted terms and conditions when you bought a ticket, and they will prohibit you from broadcasting. So it’s a breach of contract if you do that.
I do wonder what the intersection of that with viewing rights is. You can probably report what you saw on screen in real time because that’s happening in your home. But who really knows…
But that's just a shitty contract of adhesion. There is no "meeting of the minds", terms are not negotiated. The enforcability depends more on the relative appetites of the contracting parties.
The copyright situation is distinct, and may fall under "hot news", but isn't affected by a clickwrap on the site that sold you the ticket.
A ticket to a football game will never be considered a contract of adhesion. The terms are very much negotiated. Nobody has any need to go to a game. Nobody is being tricked or forced into anything. It is a one-time ticket to watch a show or shows, with an agreement not to rebroadcast that show.
Do we live in different realities? I've gone to lots of football games of lots of kinds of football and I've never negotiated the terms with the venue. I can't even remember bringing my lawyer!
Your negotiation occurs by you deciding to buy or not to buy a ticket. You can go to a baseball game instead. Or go skiing. There is no power imbalance. Compare government-mandated car insurance, or water/sewage service to your home, situations where one does not have great choice in providers nor can one easily walk away.
Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm using "contract of adhesion" and "negotiation" in their customary legal meanings. A negotiation here would be communication between the parties in order to decide on the terms of the contract. Since this doesn't occur (the venue has already written the contract and only offers it as-is) the contract is deemed to be one of "adhesion". (Definitions vary among jurisdictions, and I'm only familiar with some English speaking common law ones.)
Certainly in the US there doesn't need to be a negotiation for a contract of adhesion to be binding. Not sure where you got that from - I'd be really interested a reference that says that. I would have thought a lack of negotiation is the defining characteristic of an adhesion contract. You take it or leave it - there is no negotiation.
A contract of adhesion is not binding in the US if it is "Unreasonably one-sided". I think you would really struggle to convince any US court that without a right to rebroadcast the ticket contract was unreasonable. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adhesion-contract.asp
> I think you would really struggle to convince any US court that without a right to rebroadcast the ticket contract was unreasonable.
I don't know about that. Suppose something happens at the game that reflects poorly on the organizers. Could they then demand that all the fans who caught it on their phones are not allowed to distribute it? That seems about as reasonable as sticking a contract on the purchase of any other product that prohibits the customer from criticizing the product, i.e. not reasonable at all.
You're also stating it backwards. It isn't that the ticket is failing to grant you a right to "rebroadcast" the game, it's that it's trying to take away your default right to relay things you've seen with your own eyes. Notice that it's the presence rather than the absence of a term which is causing the issue.
> Certainly in the US there doesn't need to be a negotiation for a contract of adhesion to be binding. Not sure where you got that from...
Not sure where you got that from! The original question was about the legality of reporting the facts of an ongoing game by a spectator. I don't think that contracts of adhesion are in general unenforceable, but only that they are not so obviously enforceable as standard contracts or copyright law.
In fact I agree with everything you've said, except to say that I can imagine an unreasonable clause in a contract that prevents you from describing what you'd seen. I guess it would depend on the particulars though.
When was the last time a fan went to a football game under a contract other than the one preprinted onto the ticket stock? If the answer is "never", then the terms are most definitely not negotiated.
You’re missing the point that the ‘negotiation’ occurs when you buy the ticket or don’t buy the ticket. It’s up to you, the terms are clear, and you could go spend your time on something else without those damn football teams interfering with your life at all.
There are tall buildings near some baseball fields that can see onto the field, and some even have bleachers on the roof. There was no contract with MLB if you watch the game from there.
That kind of situation (with Wrigley Field being a great example) was ruined when people started trying to profit by charging people to sit on the roof. That's when teams started putting up barricades to block their view.
Just another example of greed ruining what people enjoyed for decades in a sort of detente.
Famously, again in Australia, the ABC lost the rights to broadcast football final games to a commercial station, so two ABC comedians (Roy and HG) did a radio show where they watched the game on tv live and added their own humorous commentary. Viewers would watch the commercial TV channel with the sound down and the ABC radio station sound instead.
To this day, I take a radio to cricket matches. I watch the live game, and listen to the ABC commentary. But I guess it's not a surprise the radio commentary is better than none at all.
It's not really a surprise Roy & HG do a better job than the TV commentary. I still have no idea what name gymnastics uses to describe the "Hello Boys" and "Dutch Wink" manoeuvres. The curious can view some of them here: https://www.royandhg.com/gymnastics
"And New Zealanders perform at their best when they're sitting down going backwards." Such astute observations are Roy's trademark.
The corporation certainly can kick you out of the stadium, but any law that can make such broadcast illegal is probably nigh unconstitutional in the US.
Washington Landlord Tenant law lists several unwaivable rights of tenants, even given specific consideration.
You can't put a clause in my lease that says "For a discount of $100/mo, I forego the relevant rights on habitability (heating, water, etc.)" - even if I am willing to agree to it.
No, that is not correct. Search for “unwaivable rights”. Obviously you can’t just limit rights with a contract. If you could, labour laws would be useless and minimum wages wouldn’t exist.
Only tangentially-related anecdote: I took my camera to a Dodgers game. To get in, you have to go through metal detectors. No problems.
I was sitting in my seat with friends, looking through my camera when a security guy came up and told me that I couldn't take pictures and that I had to take the lens off my camera. Of course I thought this was a joke and laughed in his face.
But no, he (and his buddy who also showed up) were serious. They claimed that my lens was TOO LARGE and therefore couldn't be used. I said well I went through security and they obviously didn't have a problem with it, and no fucking way was I taking it off my camera and leaving the sensor exposed all afternoon.
They grudgingly let me keep the camera together but threatened me with punishment if I was seen using it. And they seriously loitered around in the grandstand eyeballing me for the rest of the game.
It's incredible what people are expected to (and, sadly, do) tolerate now. I, the taxpayer and admission-payer, am being berated and abused for simply enjoying what I paid for.
> in Fisher's era racial separatism was considered a solution to racism
Not just a solution to racism, but also a defense against genocide. Forced interracial "marriages", rape, etc were used as a genocidal tool against the natives along with murder. Natives who refused to mix with whites were derogatorily called racists by the white settlers.
Miscegenation was actually supported by natives, blacks, asians, etc in order preserve their cultures/races in a white dominated nation. Racism ( by all sides ) actually preserved diversity in the US for centuries. Otherwise, everyone would be white due to demographic realities of the nation.
> TikTok is perhaps the most impressively addictive social media app ever created.
What nonsense.
> The algorithm used in the US was apparently banned in China for being too addictive.
"Apparently"? Tiktok was forced to separate itself into a chinese version and the non-chinese version by the US because we didn't want "da ccp" controlling tiktok.
> There's a certain historic symmetry with how opium was traditionally used in China, then Britain introduced stronger, more disruptive versions, forcing a stronger social reaction.
There is no historic symmetry. Unless china invades the US and forces americans to use tiktok. Like britain invaded china ( opium wars ) and forced opium on china's population.
What's with all the same propaganda in every tiktok/china related thread? The same talking points on every single thread for the past few years.
"Tiktok was forced to separate itself into a chinese version and the non-chinese version by the US because we didn't want "da ccp" controlling tiktok."
You're talking about Propaganda but you are spreading straight up fake news.
ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016.
ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017.
There was no "split", let alone one "forced by the US".
> There was no "split", let alone one "forced by the US".
There was no split? You wrote: "ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016. ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017."
You say there was no split while explicitly proving that there was split? You're not that stupid are you?
Why do you think "tiktok" was created in 2017 when bytedance already had douyin( aka tiktok ) in 2016?
Why is there a "tiktok" for china and a "tiktok" for everyone else? Because the "tiktok in china ( duoyin ) was influenced by the chinese government and to appease the US, bytedance branched off tiktok from "douyin".
I doesn't have anything to do with "appeasing" the US, the Chinese version is heavily filtered and tilted towards CPP prefered activities and worldview, such a platform would never work on the international market and they know it.
And it obviously is not a split if they are seperate apps from the beginning. Why do you lie so much btw?
> I doesn't have anything to do with "appeasing" the US
No. It had everything to do with it. How can you say that when tiktok is getting banned? Even after bytedance bent over backwards to appease the US?
> the Chinese version is heavily filtered and tilted towards CPP prefered activities and worldview, such a platform would never work on the international market and they know it.
Sure. But nothing prevents tiktok from catering their app to other nations differently. You do realize that most nations get different versions of tiktok, facebook, youtube, etc right?
> And it obviously is not a split if they are seperate apps from the beginning.
But they weren't separate apps from the beginning. Your fellow bot/propagandists wrote: "ByteDance initially released Douyin in China in September 2016. ByteDance introduced TikTok for users outside of China in 2017."
If someone is born in 2016 and another person is born in 2017 are born in the same year? Are they the same person?
> Why do you lie so much btw?
Everyone can read this thread and see that you are lying. Not me.
> Even after bytedance bent over backwards to appease the US?
In 2017 when TikTok was launched, there were no US government rules towards it, there were no demands made by the US government about TikTok - that part is the absolutely wrong part of your argument. You either didn't know that, or you are lying about it. Either way it's misinformation.
ByteDance didn't do anything to appease the US in 2016 or 2017. Bytedance offering Douyin for China, and a separate app TikTok for other markets is specifically about controlling the content that people see in China. TikTok is banned in China because content on TikTok isn't as filtered and strictly controlled in the same ways that China's government wants it to be for their own people - TikTok was specifically made for markets outside of China for this reason. The US had NOTHING to do with that, it is strictly about China controlling China's population with Douyin, or more specifically, not losing control of Chinese people by allowing anti-China videos to appear in Douyin. It's far easier for China to control the narrative they want if there are two separate apps that essentially provide the same user experience. The Chinese government controls TikTok, and I have not seen a single anti-China video in my wife's TikTok feed, so I'm willing to believe that they do have some control over content in the US too.
I hope that's not too complicated for you to understand.
>> Why do you lie so much btw?
>Everyone can read this thread and see that you are lying. Not me.
The other person is not lying. You may not be lying, but you really don't have your facts straight.
> “You do realize that most nations get different versions of TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, etc., right?”
That statement is misleading, as the differences between these platforms across various countries are typically minor—mostly due to copyright restrictions—so users can still access roughly 99% of the same content. This situation isn’t remotely comparable to TikTok’s China-only counterpart, Douyin, which exists in a separate and completely different ecosystem. I suspect you’re aware of this, yet you brought it up anyway. What is your motivation for such dishonesty?
> “No. It had everything to do with it. How can you say that when TikTok is getting banned? Even after ByteDance bent over backward to appease the US?”
Could you explain exactly what the United States did before 2017 that caused ByteDance to launch a separate app for every country outside of China (not just in the US)? You seem to be muddying the waters by referring to this potential 2024 ban, but that obviously can’t be the reason ByteDance created a separate platform for every non-China country back in 2017.
> “But they weren’t separate apps from the beginning.”
Actually, they were. Douyin is geo-restricted to China (requiring a Chinese phone number to register) and was never accessible to users outside the country. This restriction was put in place to limit the information available to Chinese users, clearly separating Douyin from TikTok right from the start.
> "Everyone can read this thread and see that you are lying. Not me."
Well, I certainly agree that everyone can read this thread and make a judgement on who is more honest.
> Tiktok was forced to separate itself into a chinese version and the non-chinese version by the US because we didn't want "da ccp" controlling tiktok
No. TikTok was forced to put its data on American servers [1].
Douyin was launched in 2016 as musical.ly, and is unrelated to U.S. pressure. (EDIT: Douyin was launched in 2016, TikTok in 2017. Musical.ly was acquired in 2017 and merged into/basically became TikTok. TikTok has never been in China.)
Musical.ly was not China only and I knew musical.ly before it was the predecessor of tiktok. From how I recall it, it had mostly American users. Was the split during the rebranding?
I'm not saying Britain didn't do something _against the will of the goverment_. I'm just questioning OP's nonsense that individuals were forced to consume Opium vs not forced to consume TikTok - in both cases, clearly nobody was forced. And in both cases, it's products made to be addictive.
The specific words were “china's population” which is different from any specific person.
Did the English strap down each individual and intravenously administer opium? Unlikely.
To the extent that a government reflects the general sense and purpose of a population (mandate of heaven, etc), did Queen Victoria and all her subjects force people in China to accept the presence and marketing of an addictive and risky substance? Absolutely.
Ironically, the people of Great Britain fought a war to sell opium right as there was a temperance movement within Victorian culture.
I don't know if you are just ignorant about history and unwilling to Google, or if you are making the point that of course British did not force feed opium to the people.
What is very well established is that the british fought a war , literally called the opium war by Western historians themselves with the main objective of keeping their opium distribution into China open after the emperor banned it
Their action was akin to if some majority owner of Purdue pharma invades US and forces US government to "keep the oxy market open" while letting "people make their own decision".
Tbh, what you describe sounds nothing like forcing opium on a people.
If mexico invaded and started making meth in the US, or started sending even more meth into the US than they do now by totally taking over the border, I would not begin taking meth.
The brits were also running the opium shops. So if you think country A selling opiods in country B and then going to war so that country B can not stop the sale of opiods is totally okay, then that is truly very different from my model of good behavior.
honestly, one thing I like about this conflict is that euphamistic comments like this don't get you banned anymore.
the ostracizing has been diluted so much that its become even counterproductive. everyone can laugh about something as benign as that, as the real frictions have been laid bare for all to see.
> honestly, one thing I like about this conflict is that euphamistic comments like this don't get you banned anymore.
What? It's more likely to get you banned. Not only that, it gets minority and female college presidents fired. Something unthinkable prior to this "conflict".
All one can do is push back against the propaganda and censorship.
Wouldn't be shocked. Isn't it a historical fact that the eastern and western roman empires used "barbarians" in their armies? If the vikings fought for these empires, then why not the anglo saxons and other germanic peoples?
> Isn't it a historical fact that the eastern and western roman empires used "barbarians" in their armies?
Yup.
> If the vikings fought for these empires, then why not the anglo saxons and other germanic peoples?
That's not even in question any more, it's also a historical fact.
The Varangian Guard in Constantinople started out, as the name implies (or at least used to imply[1]), with mainly Swedes come down via the Rus rivers, but a century or three later was very mixed with Franks and Anglo-Saxons, and towards the end may have consisted mainly of the latter.
[1]: I was taught, in history class in Sweden looong ago, that "Nordic raiders faring west from Norway and Denmark were called Vikings, and those faring east from Denmark and Sweden were called Varangians." But given that the name 'Varangians' seems to come primarily precisely from the Byzantian Imperial Guard, maybe the definition should follow that, and acknowledge the shifting ethnic composition of their origin.
> Does anyone have thoughts on why TikTok would choose to stop for existing users?
What business would choose to keep operating if it can't gain new customers? Think about it. The law makes it impossible for tiktok to grow or be profitable. What advertiser would be interested in a platform that will lose users every day and won't gain more in the future?
The law was sneakily and intentially written to outright ban tiktok. It would be like congress creating a law saying you specifically cannot buy more gas. You can keep using the gas in the car, but you can't fill up your tank anymore. Would you spend thousands to fix your car? Change the oil or the tire? No. You'd either sell the damn thing or just throw it away.
But the reality is that wolf packs have alpha males. Both in the wild and in zoos. The article itself clearly states so. The only difference is that in the wild, the alpha male is the biological father of his offsprings that make up the wolf pack. While in the zoo, the alpha male is generally unrelated to the other wolves.
We know alpha males and alpha females exists. The article doesn't deny that fact. It just sneakily twists the difference of alpha males in zoos and nature as an "alpha male myth".
> It’s clear that this meets some emotional/psychological need for them.
It doesn't. I could give a rats ass whether a wolf pack has a male and female alpha ( aka father and mother ). The only ones emotionally upset about alpha males are people like you who for some odd reason want to deny it's existence, reality be damned.
It's ridiculous that those denying reality are the one's accusing others of denying reality.