did you read the actual (heathermeeker.com) link you posted? here’s its very second paragraph:

This week, many people sent me the link to the Malus “Clean Room as a Service” announcement. I don’t think I’ve ever had so many people send me a single link. Now, ‘’‘this website is fake’‘’, but you have to wade into it a bit to figure that out. No real company would be foolish enough to represent anything as “legally distinct,” for example. The name “Malus” suggests a bad actor, and I guess it’s a pun on Manus, a popular AI agent. So, it seems site is a troll.

but cable didn’t improve which is what the question asks for

That’s a single study from 2009; I posted 52 studies compiled last week.

the article is saying that researchers are pretty sure now that testosterone is not the cause

unfortunately “thrust” is the accurate aircraft term 😭

under capitalism governments need to have market controls to prevent products that only harm and trap users to enrich the producer

It’s like drugs.

You can try it right now, actually.

oh i thought you were referring to people saying it to illustrate how bad the system is and how important trump winning the election was lol. i definitely agree that it doesn’t justify what he’s doing (even if it legally stands, even if it legally stands, it doesn’t stand socially)

but it is not inaccurate to say nearly half of the citizens preferred him on election day. per the link, pew research shows 48% of non-voters would’ve voted for trump as opposed to 45%, with a pretty high validity.

it’s like gravity

(small objects don’t have (well, show, I guess but uhhh) it but large ones do)

NPR: Trump would have won even if everyone eligible voted. I agree that substantial Trump voters disapprove of current events, but the truth is one in two US citizens preferred Trump over Harris on Election Day. Not to mention turnout was 64% not 42%, so it’s 30% not 20%

yeah that is indeed my last sentence. i’m pointing out that maybe this means capital can sort of back-and-forth this. anti-immigration to get into power and do pro-capital things, then be pro-immigration to get into power and expand labor force, repeat

it’s interesting you point out successful social movements are often aligned with capital, as the major totalitarian thing today, action against illegal immigrants, is action against expanding the labor force. it gets society invested in giving capital power though

there’s a difference between virtue signaling and just expressing ideas/opinion. the one that matters the most to me is that the latter isn’t hostile

the flippancy you find especially across threads on political news across the fediverse is awful because it drives people away without accomplishing things other than virtue signaling

there’s some distance between just having a (transactional) relationship and a true-love relationship where “I like you for who you are and the comfort of being around you, and you feel the same” fits in, though

Only if you do separate them and do not distribute the copyrighted image.

Thus it doesn’t apply to OP’s examples, that is my point.

(FWIW you can make a copy of a copyrighted image to extensively critique it as long as the copy is not unreasonably detailed.)

Then your criteria isn’t "noncommercial but “noncommercial and transformative” (“the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, disfavored fair use because although the use was noncommercial, it was also not transformative”), which OP’s examples aren’t. Using film music for your videos isn’t transformative. Law doesn’t have a “I didn’t distribute my video” exception either unless that’s how the music was licensed to you.

Your phrasing sounds like fair use is the default case for non-commercial when really it just makes it “more likely” legal. The most obvious example is Hachette v. Internet Archive. US copyright is so pro-business that you never know until the gavel is down.