> and they would go out of business if they did.

That's what this is. This is a step in that process. This post on this forum, with both of us replying to it. You think what? There's a "scandal" and an "outrage" and then...what do you expect? The entire PR industry--a few others as well--is built to undermine scandals and outrage. Oh there's stuff on TV that sounds scandalous sure--every two months or so, in a merry-go-round set of industries...I only watch when there is nowhere in a restaurant I can avoid looking at it, but what are the scandals, steroids in baseball? A corporation that did something disgusting but isn't getting punished at all (as opposed to the many corporations that do get punished for real, TV hates showing those because then people learn what justice actually looks like). Or...some celebrity...some celebrity getting lynched. Or a rogue employee like on a crusade...or a lawsuit that the news wished had lost so they lie about it as much as possible to make the plaintiff look greedy (real easy if you just multiply the settlement by a lot, or report the claim instead of the awards, or lie about the award being reduced to what the plaintiff was asking for, or fucking insult the jury too while you're at it, even insult the judge, it's disgusting, they think they're strictly better than everybody).

They wouldn't go out of business if they did that. They just have to do it in lockstep with the rest of their industry, then they'll be fine.

> if you want to make video, make video.

Now I very much don't want to make video, and frankly lost a lot of respect for digital video in general. And for contracts. And every time I hear the word "consent" I go on full alert, as I said in a previous comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31104705 "...no rapey cookie "consent" contract, like those are just disgusting I hate getting asked for consent it means I'm about to get fucked. Every single time you get asked for consent it's because you're about to get fucked."

You know why that is? Because in order to defend the act of fucking you, they have to say you consented. Or they get fucked just as hard as they fucked you. And they live in fear of that, fear of retribution, they know how harmful they are, this is like--justice is often eye for an eye[1], despite striking others blind (or in this case peeking through their eyes), I never want that to happen to me, so I need magic spells because otherwise I would feel the harm I do to others. So I need to get consent with a long disgusting contract, and further I need to get people to sign things as often as possible, for every little thing so they are desensitized to what it means to consent to being struck blind, and they give up on reading contracts.[2]

[1] So justice basically is eye for an eye, historically, normally. These days it is both more and less. So you have on the one hand the Sacklers paying 10 billion instead of 3.4 trillion, that's less than an eye for an eye. The Sacklers are paying with the eyes they stole, and have plenty left. Plenty of eyes to go around! Then in the halfway point you have murderers getting the death penalty for one murder, exactly an eye for an eye. Then, the multiple-eyes-for-an-eye, a convicted rapist will spend...it really depends, but like 10 years is a common one. And due to that conviction, will be targeted by the other inmates, with the guard's approval, to rape that convict as much as they please basically. In movies it's just one rape, one time, in real prisons it's continual. So what you get, is virgins who ipso facto didn't rape anybody getting raped about 3 times a day, for 10 years, so about 10000 times, on the basis they were accused of one rape. So to translate 10000 eyes for an eye, but not even a real eye, like a glass eye.

Oh you didn't like talking about that? Too gross? But it's germane to the subject, we had been talking about consent this whole time!

[2] There's a synergy between abusing people's eyes and getting them to sign contracts, now that I think about it. Blind people can't read contracts, like everybody screams from the pain in their ass when a blind man asks for a contract in braille, like the discrimination is very real. And they lie to them when reading out loud. So in this slightly different case, you could be filming your screen with a RED camera to identify manipulation in a contract--like shitty javascript moving items when you click--with a RED camera, but then RED looks at what you filmed, oh he's filming the signature of a contract, we don't want that, he's using this camera as an eye to READ a CONTRACT, let's add in our update the terms that we get to edit what he recorded so we delete the evidence. Oh wait, that's even more literal! Literal striking an eye blind just when you needed it to preserve evidence! Good synergy.