Broadly speaking it sounds a bit like Antitrust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_(film)

But I haven't seen it in quite a while so I'm not sure how well specifics line up.

Over the years, I've become one to keep my media use as legit as possible. No judgement on anyone who doesn't, but for a variety of reasons I have chosen to.

For retro games, that means my process is:

• Evercade - I'm a huge fan of the Evercade ecosystem and if a game is available there I will play it there first.
• NSO - For games not available on Evercade, my next stop will be Switch Online.
• Collections - If a game isn't available on NSO, I'll see if it's available via a collection. Think Castlevania Collections, Arcade Archives, Namco Museums, etc. For these I'll typically check reviews before picking it up and make sure the games play well as that's not always a guarantee.
• Unlicensed emulation - Only at that point will I fire up a game on my raspberry pi.

Though honestly I can't really be bothered to tinker with shit as much anymore these days, so often (but not always) by the time I arrive at unlicensed emulation as the solution I'll just decide to play something else instead.

Seriously. I realize people have Feelings about DRM and always-online stuff, but this is an article about a game that was never especially popular or active entering maintenance mode after a couple of years.

They aren't shutting it down, they aren't making it unplayable (though of course either of those things could happen at any time etc etc) - they just are no longer producing content for a game almost no one is playing anymore anyway.

I dunno, 'game company commissions study to ask gamers to self-report about how gaming isn't a waste of their time'?

I'm in my mid 30s and have played video games my whole life. I also participate in some gaming communities online and my real-life friends are about 50/50 with regards to gaming. And if asked, yeah, I would probably self report that video games have had a positive impact on my life.

But have they? I'm not qualified to say. I don't have any actual data in front of me. I do know playing video games often makes me feel good, but I can say that about lots of unhealthy habits.

Was pumping 150 hours into Tears of the Kingdom better for me than the couple weeks of workouts I skipped? Is it good that I drank more beer during that time than I normally would have?

Would my life have been more or less improved if, instead of talking about video games online I had been practicing guitar and finding an open mic night to play at?

Would it have been better for my mental health and hand-eye coordination instead of playing Elden Ring to have gone to Home Depot, bought some wood, and built the shelves I've been putting off building in the basement to ease some of our storage issues?

If video games really were an unqualified good, would "my loser boyfriend stays up all night yelling into his headset about Overwatch/CoD/Fifa/Fortnite" be such a common stereotype?

I'm not suggesting video games are bad (or even that the sometimes-unhealthy way I engage with them is bad), but I am suggesting that "gamers say gaming is good for them, actually" does not provide useful data for analysis or discussion.

Okay. If the article is misleading or wrong, it shouldn't be posted. If it is found to be incorrect after posting, is it better to fix the title and let the comments sort it out or to fully delete the post?

The title of this post is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong. From the source that OP linked in a couple other comments here (emphasis mine throughout):

Since the start of July, the app's downloads have fallen by almost 30% compared to the preceding two months, according to data from app performance tracker Apptopia. ... Twitter has gained usually 15 million to 30 million users a month since 2011, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It gained just 10 million users between August and September of this year. ... Visits to the web version of X, which still operates as twitter.com, fell since the start of the year, with global web traffic down 10% in August and US traffic down 15%, compared to a year ago, according to an analysis by Similarweb. ... So far in September, daily users are down to 249 million, a roughly 2% decrease... Monthly users are down by about the same percentage, now at 393 million users from 398 million in July.

That is emphatically not "loses over 30% of users in two months." That is, though, "signs of slowing growth" and "signs of the most recent round of dramatic announcements wearing off and folks moving on with their lives" which is why Musk is doing his best to get back into the news cycle.

Maybe OP should go ahead and update the post with a more accurate title to avoid spreading misinformation.

It seems to me that this is a dangerous game being played here. There is no ruling here that will lead to an overall positive outcome or be seen as legitimate by broad swaths of the country. I see any ruling creating more trouble than it solves.

To be clear, defeating Trump one last time in an election also isn't going to solve anything, given how far gone the GOP is at this point. But it'll be a damn sight better than the kind of political games that will start popping up if this works and better than giving Republicans a way to claim Trump was found not guilty of insurrection in court if it doesn't.

It's always interesting when someone is like "I wish I could go back to using smaller sites/forums or try some more open/ethical platforms, but I can't because all of my family are on Facebook."

Remember just 20 years ago when most of your family wasn't anywhere on the internet and that was just fine? I recognize that I'm saying this as a semi-isolated weirdo on some relatively obscure corner of the Internet, but it's okay to not be in constant passive contact with everyone you've ever met. Yeah it's more work to keep in touch with the folks you actually care about if you can't do so passively via Facebook, but that's how it always was. Email exists, texts and phone calls exist, meeting up exists.

If there are people you care about you can still keep in touch with them without using the same social media platform as them. Just like in the 90s you didn't need to read rec.models.railroad to keep in touch with your model train loving uncle.

I get that these connections (whatever one might say of their quality or tangibility if the interaction is just "look at picture, press like button") are important to people and one of the positives of platforms like Facebook, but if you're going to bemoan not being able to seek alternatives solely because the entire world isn't switching with you, it's important to realize that is a choice and not a requirement.

DMVs are sometimes where states will dump troublesome or underperforming employees they can't outright fire.

On the other end, the DMV is one of the places where employees have a job interacting with the public for sometimes-complex transactions. And, generally speaking, the public is dumb, unpleasant, and unprepared. Especially when dealing with low-level government beaurocrats who are telling them something they don't want to hear.

It is absolutely blowing my mind how many people are looking at this and thinking that is trying to show, like, primary land use per block on the map or something?

Like it's well-known that maple syrup comes exclusively from northwest PA, plus all the logging that happens in downtown San Francisco and LA.

So my two theories are:

• This was a rushed launch to capitalize on the latest Twitter shit show and the home timeline wasn't done yet.
• They didn't want people to log into Threads and see nothing if none of their other follows have activated yet, so instead they force you to see everything so you don't run out of content and disengage.

Either way I'd expect to see it soon.