There’s probably going to be membership/sign up fees and required unpaid shifts. For someone who might want to smoke a blunt once or twice a year, that might be excessive.
These are really common in Spain, IMO they’re…not great.
As an old man who prefers edibles I really cant stand the smell/smoke/atmosphere.
I would really appreciate if our governments allowed us to be the adults we can be, and this would include being able to open a “more refined” dispensary for people other than who they think uses “The marijuanas”.
As an old man who prefers edibles I really cant stand the smell/smoke/atmosphere.
Well, you won’t get that smell in German cannabis clubs, since the law doesnt permit smoking there. But you also won’t be able to get edibles at a club, only buds. So if you prefer edibles you still have to make them yourself, and it will still be illegal
No, sadly not. But of course the likelyhood of getting caught in your own home is slim, unless you do something stupid or live with people that report you to the police
In welchem Gesetzestext soll das stehen? Mit den 50 Gramm die Zuhause benutzt werden dürfen, darf man alles machen, was man möchte. Man darf natürlich weiterhin keinen Kuchen oder Brownies mit Cannabis backen und die verteilen…
Crude translation: There is no direct mentioning on use cases in the law, just things you can’t do in certain public places and selling hash browns or something like that. You can do anything you like in your home with it. And in those clubs, you are also not allowed to do anything with it, your just able to distribute a certain amount in leaf form.
I fail to understand how you can only possess up to 50 g of weed at home. You’re allowed to have three plants and one plant produces normally over 100 g. What.
Yes, the law is still very restrictive, in some ways more restrictive than before even. Calling it a legalization is pretty dishonest, it’s a partial decriminalization at best
It doesn’t make much sense, but conservatives are already losing their minds over the 25g we’re allowed to carry “nooo, we’re enabling drug dealers with those massive quantities”. If they went for 500g at home, there would’ve been a lot more negative press I imagine and it might not have gone through. Maybe it will be adjusted a few years down the line.
Germany doing it will likely set precedent in all of northern Europe. My prediction is Denmark will follow in 2 year time, Norway in 3-4 years and Sweden likely last at 5 years, even though I think we consume more of it per capita… Swedish stance on drug use has been extremely conservative for many, many decades by now and is super rooted in the common Psyche, which is why so many die of overdoses and kill themselves if it comes out they use. The stigma is heavy.
I honestly don’t believe Sweden will come around that quickly. We’re way too deep into prohibition to swing over like that. A majority of people do really hate drugs. This being said I absolutely think it will happen within a decade unless something goes wrong elsewhere.
Hopefully we in the Netherlands will finally legalize it as well instead of it being a gray area. Although that would require us to give up on beating Belgium’s record of not forming a government.
Alcohol is fine. Drugs being bad was just bashed into our cultural collective head so hard that it’s difficult to get out of. A politician cannot speak of decriminalisation without being thrown out of every one of the established parties.
Yeah, I also don’t see it happening in 5 years, the government knows its policy has caused Sweden to have the highest drug related death rate but they just double down on prohibition.
Anyway, if it’s not legalised in the next 3-4 years, I’m moving to Spain, I like who I am when I smoke, I like the control I have over my anxiety and the boos of life and energy I get.
Sweden and Finland will be among the last in Europe to decriminalize/legalize.
“Drugs are bad because drugs are bad” is too deeply ingrained into the older population. It will take years to change this attitude, even if the results of legalization in other countries will be positive.
“It just would not work here” is the eternal argument. And the only one.
Meanwhile both of those country inject caffeine intravenously. I have no idea how one could possibly go through a kg of coffee a month, yet for Finns that’s nearly the average.
While Germany attempts to legalize cannabis, in Lithuania you can buy alcohol Mon-Sat from 10:00 to 20:00, except Sundays, where you have 3 hours window, from 12:00 to 15:00…
If it happens that cannabis is legalized in many Eu countries, I am pretty sure that Lithuania might start considering it in 10-30 years. 🙆
But oh well, I’ll simply travel more. I liked Berlin when I visited it few months back. :)
Not fully decriminalized no, you’re right, but it has come a long way. And the step from illegal to decriminalized is much larger than decriminalized to legalized. The latter is also a way to boost the tax revenue and strangle gang income, with a slight risk of giving them legitimate revenue instead of illegal.
I had to look it up: Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Uruguay, South Africa, Georgia, Luxembourg, Malta, and now Germany. It’s legal in a little over half of the US including territories.
Did Germany change their plan though? Originally they were just going to open up 3 cannabis shops in Berlin as a test, now it seems they’re just going with full legalization across the country as of April. Anyone have more insight into the rollout?
To comply with EU law, cannabis won’t be sold commercially. Instead, people can form cannabis clubs where they grow it for their own use. Only members can get cannabis at such a club. Alternatively, you can grow it at home.
That makes a lot of sense as a law, actually. Most of the problems that have arisen from state legalization in the US has been from people trying to jump on the money train by starting huge questionable grow sites in remote areas (such as where I live). And, of course, getting some of the organized crime elements involved because there’s money to be made. I’m sure some will skirt this law but promoting it to be small scale, personal consumption only is pretty based.
I really like this. Yes, it should be everyone’s choice to consume it or not. But there really shouldn’t be commercial incentives to get people addicted and to get rich from their addiction.
Imgine the same rules applying to alcohol and tobacco… (yes you can absolutely grow tobacco in Germany).
I’m a fan of the ‘speed bump’ for a lot of the same reasons, if nothing else than requiring a certain level of interest or effort beyond swiping a credit card. But I’d like to have a medical and/or compassionate carer exemption for non-recreation patients.
I have enjoyed my time with the herb and agree that legalization is our best harm reduction route, but I’m not going to pretend it’s a net societal gain either - like you said look at how we treat alcohol and: cars, marketing, licensing, enforcement, child access, addiction, rehab industry, etc
I’d like to smoke a joint once in a while, like two or three times a month. A single plant would last me years, home-grown or at a club doesn’t matter it’d be way too much.
So expect there to be a large second-hand market. “You can’t sell” doesn’t do anything about supply and demand.
Thailand is in the middle of banning it as they elected a conservative government not long after legalising it.
Also for recreational use it’s legal in one of eight states/territories in Australia. Medicinal in every state but that’s not really the same even if it’s dead easy to get.
No, that’s a common misconception about the Netherlands that even many of their own citizens don’t know is wrong. It’s not legal to own, even under 5g, there just isn’t a punishment for it if you get caught, except for police confiscating it
How long is it by train from Berlin or Frankfurt to Luxembourg City and does Luxembourg’s bill allow for sales to German residents? I know the Netherlands had been trying to restrict their weed sales to Dutch residents (and I’m not sure if they were successful), but is this a situation where people were already just making day trips to buy it so might as well make it legal?
Is it better to periodically clear unused handles and have them snatched up by bots or should they sell them? To me selling them gives people a chance to get the handle they want and stops bots from grabbing up popular handles.
If I want the handle fizz I’ll pay about $10 if someone wants to pay more then they want it more than me. I’d rather be able to bid on it than have it grabbed by a bot.
You think those are mutually exclusive? What’s to stop a bot/bad actor with some money from buying “unused” handles?
I guess this isn’t the worst idea he’s had for twitter but it seems like a short term money grab while the ship is sinking. By his own valuation twitter is worth half what it was a year ago and still not profitable, selling usernames won’t change that
But if you were the legitimate person behind a username, why should it be taken from you just because you’ve been idly waiting for any value to be realised and not actively using it? In particular, they’re taking it with no compensation, for the purpose of keeping all of the new value for themselves.
It would be far more reasonable if they took away everyone’s accounts and sold them all. That would be equal and fair.
But equal and fair and reasonable isn’t the goal of X and Musk. The goal is to stir as much shit as possible before the business inevitably closes due to excessive debt, as a direct result of the initial leveraged buyout. Then, new platforms can be put in its place, and the more dodgy stuff X gets away with the more these new platforms can also.
They’re not giving it to other users, they’re selling it. If usernames are going to be sold then it is only right that the original user be paid a fair share.
But that’s the thing, a bot can’t scoop it up without going through the user, without acquiring it from them in some way. Twitter are bypassing the user entirely and taking it from them. Also, a bot is illegitimate, however in selling usernames itself Twitter is effectively legitimising the practice.
Either usernames have no value, in which case Twitter can do with them as they please, or the usernames have value and that value rightfully belongs to the user that holds it.
Most sites that use a unique username free up old ones periodically so I don’t think that’s the issue here. Usernames have value and that’s why they should be freed and auctioned to people that want them. On a proprietary website like Twitter nothing belongs to the user.
But the rules on almost all sites is that they don’t have value - the terms and conditions forbid you from trading usernames.
Like I say, they can’t have it both ways. Either they have no value and trading is against the terms, or they do have value and can be traded, in which case the website has a duty towards the user as the “bank” where the valuable item is kept. Furthermore, the higher the price Twitter are looking to sell usernames for, the more reasonable the claim against them becomes. $50,000 is a significant amount, one which a claim could reasonably be made for.
On a proprietary website like Twitter nothing belongs to the user.
Not true. If I make a post on Twitter, that post is my intellectual property. Twitter might claim extensive rights to user posts, as they are on their website and their terms and conditions claim such rights, but the user is still the owner.
Whether or not Twitter can even hold onto all of the rights their terms claim is also tenuous, as there is an argument that consideration (ie payment) should be given in return for those rights. Using the website is not really consideration, as the website is free to use regardless of whether you post content to it.
They can have it both ways. Usernames can have value and Twitter can sell them and users can not sell their own accounts.
I looked into who owns the tweets and Twitter said users own their tweet but a us judge ruled that Twitter owns the tweets. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think you own a Twitter username and I think its reasonable for Twitter to delete your inactive account and release the username and sell it if they want. I don’t think you would win a legal battle and Twitter can update their policy to do whatever they need to do to remove your ownership if you had any.
Link? If it wasn’t the US Supreme Court, then the ruling is significantly limited. And even if it was, that only applies to the US. Beyond that, we’d be getting into the nitty gritty of copyright law in specific jurisdictions - so far we’ve been talking about overall principles of copyright and intellectual property.
Twitter’s current terms seem very clear on the matter:
You retain ownership and rights to any of your Content you post or share, and you provide us with a broad, royalty-free license to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.
You own the content, Twitter has a licence. They also provide no definition for “Content”, so it can easily be argued that the username is content, as it is provided by the user.
Twitter can update their policy as much as they like, but it would ultimately be decided in the courts. Until then nothing is certain, but David doesn’t always lose to Goliath, and courts don’t like it when a big player is clearly taking advantage of the little guy. $50,000 value would definitely be considered.
More likely though there probably will be no legal battle. Twitter is circling the drain, by the time anything is heard in court they’ll be gone. However that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do things like this with no objections.
If I want the handle fizz I’ll pay about $10 if someone wants to pay more then they want it more than me.
No, if someone is willing to pay more than you they may want it less but also value their money less because they have a lot of it, or they may think they can use it to make more money than you are willing to pay for it. capital=power, not desire
Poor people don’t really want things - you need a certain level of cash flow to qualify as a proper person with dreams and feelings, haven’t you heard?
That would be lovely! I actually still own some DOGE, albeit more for teh lulz than because of sound financial reasons. Though I’ve yet to encounter one single place where I could spend them for something I actually need.
I’d be slightly disappointed if the bill simply read “69.99” instead of “very such wow point wow” though.
I disagree that you don’t own it. Just because a business writes something into its terms and conditions, that doesn’t mean it is legitimate. The user behind the account has a stronger claim to the value of the account than the website - the user was the one who created the value, not the website. The website created the platform and then the marketplace, but the users are the ones who impart the value.
If the username is just a username and not being sold, then there isn’t really anything actionable, but because X are looking to sell it for significant value then it is actionable, and the user has the stronger claim.
This would be like a bank claiming all the money in your savings account because you haven’t made any deposits or withdrawals recently.
SWIM lives in such a country, and recently got hit by a “virtual fee” for account inactivity. Since it isn’t a “real fee”, it doesn’t increase debt, which would be illegal, but the bank will still happily apply it the moment SWIM were to ever put any money in the account.
SWIM looked around the web, and there are more people who got hit with that out of the blue… after they apparently introduced the “functionality” in 2018, but decided to “delay it” until 2023 because of COVID and stuff.
Calling it a “virtual fee” and just letting them sit there without doing anything, allows the entity to claim having more clients than they actually have, and look like it’s being owed more that it will ever get paid.
The user behind the account has a stronger claim to the value of the account than the website
Legally, they absolutely do not. Regardless of how shitty it is, a user has no rights whatsoever to anything on these platforms. Doesn’t matter if you’ve had an account on Twitter since day one, have a million followers, and because of that facilitated tons of ad revenue for the platform. Literally none of it belongs to you in any tangible or legal way.
These are chickens that people never believed would come home to roost. These social media companies have been around for so long and feel like such major players that people don’t think about things changing, and what that change means when they’ve built entire communities or businesses on these platforms. This is what happens when you build a life or career on a foundation you don’t control. The rug can be pulled out from under you at any time, and you have no recourse whatsoever.
You’re not even a tenant to these companies. You are not the customer. You’re the product they serve up.
This would be like a bank claiming all the money in your savings account because you haven’t made any deposits or withdrawals recently.
Many banks have features and services that require a minimum average daily balance and/or a certain number of transactions each month. Plenty of them have inactivity fees. And they’ll tell you that you signed papers agreeing to these things. Are those agreements valid? Doesn’t matter. Can you afford to sue a billion dollar banking and investment company to find out?
N.B.: I’m not endorsing these practices. Just describing the reality of them. Social media is a cancer. Capitalism is killing the planet. And all these problems lay therein.
The reality is that we often don’t know what rights we have until we attempt to take them to court and see if they carry weight. At some point companies move into the territory of fraud. The question is where that line is. This could well land on the wrong side of the line if a few judges decide it’s not reasonable.
No, the user absolutely does have rights to things on the platform. For example, reddit likes to talk big about “their data”, but in fact this data belongs to the users. Reddit claims an extensive licence to the data users provide them, but that data belongs to the user that created it.
It is akin to copyright. An artist has full ownership of the material they create, while their music label or whatever has rights to distribute it. So a media organisation can sell music rights to a dodgy politician for their election campaign, and that is legitimate, but it is still the artist’s work. In this example, the artist has already agreed to and been paid for the use of their work.
Like I say, just because a business puts it in their terms and conditions, that doesn’t mean it is legitimate. Just because it hasn’t been properly challenged, just because people haven’t yet thought of it as worthwhile to jump through the legal hoops, does not mean it is legitimate, let alone right.
Contracts require consideration. If I give you Intellectual Property rights to something I create, you must give me something in return. “Access to a website” is not really consideration - the website is free to access, regardless of whether I contribute, thus it cannot be taken as reasonable consideration in exchange for the value I provide. You should pay me if you profit from my work.
Websites and digital enterprises have got away without paying users for a long time. When it started, it didn’t seem like there was any significant value to any of it. Now, businesses like Facebook and Google have taken that “valueless” data and exploited it so much as to place themselves amongst the wealthiest organisations in the world - it is abundantly clear that user data does have value, even if that value requires work to be derived.
It also requires work to build a car, but you still have to pay for the nuts and bolts. Users should be paid for the nuts and bolts they provide, which digital businesses merely collect, then use to manufacture their product.
This really needs to be emphasised:
The user is not the product. The user is the supplier of raw materials. The supplier deserves to be fairly paid.
It does become a little different with usernames. In this case, the platform would normally claim ownership of usernames, which, per their terms can conditions, have no value (you’re not allowed to sell your account). However, when the business starts to place tangible value on the usernames that people have invested time in - beyond that of shady 3rd party websites that breach the terms of the website the username comes from - then things become fair and reasonable game for legal challenges.
The usernames would have no value if it weren’t for the users that held them. If Twitter/X reclaimed all the usernames and started selling them, people wouldn’t buy them for any significant amount, they would go to another platform and impart value there instead.
This is nothing but the latest example of sociopathic assholes trying to see how much shit they can get away with taking for free. Just because no one notices the theft, that does not mean no theft has been committed.
Like, platforms don’t actually own your data and usually explicitly state so; if for no reason other than not having liability for what you post.
If they did actually own the data (beyond having the very broad license to use it) they’d also have to curate 100% of it, otherwise they’d get sued to oblivion by copyright holders and whatnot.
Ownership of identifiers, that includes usernames, is regulated by Trademark laws.
If you keep using a moniker, like a username, to conduct trade under it, and/or have it registered as a trademark (which requires you to use it in trade or lose it), then you can legally claim it.
Otherwise, Twitter or any other platform, can do whatever they want with it.
Correct. What decides the rights, is the use. A registered but unused mark loses the rights, while a used but unregistered one keeps the rights (just becomes harder to prove).
And it needs to be used for trade. Like, someone’s personal nick, not used for trade, would have no rights. But the nick of someone using it to be an influencer, or a furry artist, would give them some rights.
Because it'll be used by questionable sources to farm accounts with history and of well known people to enroll in astroturfing, propaganda and straight up scams.
msn.com
Active