Bruh, it's only a link not an ad. It only appears on fridays. If you don't like it, just go somewhere else.
Of course it was an ad. That nobody paid you for it, does not mean it is not an ad. See Merriam Webster. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertisement
Ad = Public notice, anouncement, communiqué,..
So please, on your features text lichess.org/features, replace "Zero ads" by "Ads at will and grace of Thibault to promote his political agenda"
I am not a lawyer, but probably, promoting a political agenda of somebody is in contrast to the official target of the Lichess Organization, which is an official organization in France with this single sentence as its target in its declaration:
Objet : promouvoir et favoriser l'enseignement et la pratique du jeu d'échecs et de ses variantes.
Source: http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/publications/assoc/pdf/2016/0025/JOAFE_PDF_Unitaire_20160025_00818.pdf
Translation by DeepL:
Purpose: to promote and encourage the teaching and practice of chess and its variants.
Probably, the organization has some tax advantages because of this single target, which contains nothing about politics. Hence, it might even be unlawful to promote political agendas here.
Ad = Public notice, anouncement, communiqué,..
So please, on your features text lichess.org/features, replace "Zero ads" by "Ads at will and grace of Thibault to promote his political agenda"
I am not a lawyer, but probably, promoting a political agenda of somebody is in contrast to the official target of the Lichess Organization, which is an official organization in France with this single sentence as its target in its declaration:
Objet : promouvoir et favoriser l'enseignement et la pratique du jeu d'échecs et de ses variantes.
Source: http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/publications/assoc/pdf/2016/0025/JOAFE_PDF_Unitaire_20160025_00818.pdf
Translation by DeepL:
Purpose: to promote and encourage the teaching and practice of chess and its variants.
Probably, the organization has some tax advantages because of this single target, which contains nothing about politics. Hence, it might even be unlawful to promote political agendas here.
@laatikko I did mean that cutting down on anything in the name of the climate is crazy. People use plastic because it does the job the best out of any material. Telling people to not use it because it hurts the environment is crazy. Make a better material that doesn't hurt the environment instead of demanding people use a soggy straw.
Parts of the market are free in a mixed market system so claiming me saying "free market solutions" means I think there's no regulation is obtuse. The plastic thing is an example of a problem that has to be solved with a free market solution. Regulating plastic usage is obscene and horrible. Make a better material that does the job better if you want to help the environment.
The only purpose of government should be to prevent the restriction of individual freedoms. A military prevents invaders from restricting freedom, elections prevent domestic government from restricting freedom, taxes are a reality for paying for this protection. Social problems on the other hand are up to individuals to solve and the government should care zero about them. Helping the poor with welfare is a good example of government overreach. It should be on individuals to provide charity and lift up those who need help. When the government gets involved you get communities that are perpetually poor and the rich people lose sympathy when their money is being mishandled for a "good cause".
Parts of the market are free in a mixed market system so claiming me saying "free market solutions" means I think there's no regulation is obtuse. The plastic thing is an example of a problem that has to be solved with a free market solution. Regulating plastic usage is obscene and horrible. Make a better material that does the job better if you want to help the environment.
The only purpose of government should be to prevent the restriction of individual freedoms. A military prevents invaders from restricting freedom, elections prevent domestic government from restricting freedom, taxes are a reality for paying for this protection. Social problems on the other hand are up to individuals to solve and the government should care zero about them. Helping the poor with welfare is a good example of government overreach. It should be on individuals to provide charity and lift up those who need help. When the government gets involved you get communities that are perpetually poor and the rich people lose sympathy when their money is being mishandled for a "good cause".
The lichess French association has no special tax exemption, we pay taxes on our single employee, Thibault / ornicar2, like any other employer (ie. roughly 100%) and French citizens or companies do not get tax deductions for donating to Lichess.
If you continue digging, you'll find that political parties are also the same kind of association in France, and they can be political, so we're definitely not breaking a law by displaying a banner on a website.
There is great freedom on what an association can do in France, especially if it involves no money transactions like the FFF banner, as long as we don't support a single politician or party (because then we would have to be factored into campaign spending and media coverage caps). Unless the FFF movement suddenly became a political party with Greta as a candite for French presidency, we're good.
As for the whole debate of wanting to save the planet being political, obviously it shouldn't be seen as partisan politics, but deniers gotta deny to make corporations richer, I guess.
If you continue digging, you'll find that political parties are also the same kind of association in France, and they can be political, so we're definitely not breaking a law by displaying a banner on a website.
There is great freedom on what an association can do in France, especially if it involves no money transactions like the FFF banner, as long as we don't support a single politician or party (because then we would have to be factored into campaign spending and media coverage caps). Unless the FFF movement suddenly became a political party with Greta as a candite for French presidency, we're good.
As for the whole debate of wanting to save the planet being political, obviously it shouldn't be seen as partisan politics, but deniers gotta deny to make corporations richer, I guess.
I am genuinely shocked about the extremely low level of resilience to propaganda the creators of this site are so proud to display.
The wonder-child who's constantly on the news (ask yourselves: who the hell controls the news business?) is not gonna save the world, for the simple reason that she's been brought to our attention by those who are allegedly responsible of the dire straits our planet found itself in!
Seriously Lichess, wake up and stop trolling us with this crap. Apart from being inherently appalling (a child with serious problems is being exploited for political propaganda), all this is utterly insulting.
@Sarg0n: if Thibault ever decides to shut down the site, he'll have betrayed himself, not us. By the same token, if he decides to advertise idiotic apocalyptic forecasts about the future of our planet and the fabulous solutions the multinationals (!) have in store for us, he can happily do so on his way to hell, 'cause that's where I am gonna send him if he does that again
(EDIT: It was brought to my attention that my words sounded threatening. I do realize why my reference to hell can be perceived as threatening some sort of physical threat. That wasn’t at all the message I wanted to convey and I sincerely apologize for such a poor choice of words. I meant to say that if the banner reappears, I’ll just say “to hell with it” and will stop using the site.)
One more thing: if you believe all the crap they are shoving up your throat, be prepared to welcome the stuff they're gonna stick up your @$$ when they'll tell you how a change in YOUR lifestyle and rights is gonna be necessary for the planet to survive.
The wonder-child who's constantly on the news (ask yourselves: who the hell controls the news business?) is not gonna save the world, for the simple reason that she's been brought to our attention by those who are allegedly responsible of the dire straits our planet found itself in!
Seriously Lichess, wake up and stop trolling us with this crap. Apart from being inherently appalling (a child with serious problems is being exploited for political propaganda), all this is utterly insulting.
@Sarg0n: if Thibault ever decides to shut down the site, he'll have betrayed himself, not us. By the same token, if he decides to advertise idiotic apocalyptic forecasts about the future of our planet and the fabulous solutions the multinationals (!) have in store for us, he can happily do so on his way to hell, 'cause that's where I am gonna send him if he does that again
(EDIT: It was brought to my attention that my words sounded threatening. I do realize why my reference to hell can be perceived as threatening some sort of physical threat. That wasn’t at all the message I wanted to convey and I sincerely apologize for such a poor choice of words. I meant to say that if the banner reappears, I’ll just say “to hell with it” and will stop using the site.)
One more thing: if you believe all the crap they are shoving up your throat, be prepared to welcome the stuff they're gonna stick up your @$$ when they'll tell you how a change in YOUR lifestyle and rights is gonna be necessary for the planet to survive.
@Lukhas you got it so wrong, mate. If there's something absolutely certain about this whole story, is that corporations are sponsoring that lovely kid! Can't you see it? She's on the news at all times! Who owns the news? Yeah, right: corporations.
Come on... you can't reasonably expect you audience to be as naïve as you are!
Come on... you can't reasonably expect you audience to be as naïve as you are!
Which news and which parent corporations are you referring to?
Also please make up your mind between calling Greta and FFF communist propaganda or controlled by corporations, unless you're also assuming that corporations are suddenly communist, which would be quite the scoop.
Lichess can do whatever it wants. No need to complain on the best (and free!!!) online chess site.
The sad thing is that even some chess players cant calculate the consequences of climate change and dont see that much has to be changed on our planet = in our lifes.
The sad thing is that even some chess players cant calculate the consequences of climate change and dont see that much has to be changed on our planet = in our lifes.
@testaccount42 "I did mean that cutting down on anything in the name of the climate is crazy."
Ahm, ok... I might say something on the contrary, that it is actally very reasonable to take care of the climate and try to minimize the awaiting enivronmental crisis that can destroy our, and our children's and grandchildren's lives.
"Parts of the market are free in a mixed market system so claiming me saying "free market solutions" means I think there's no regulation is obtuse. The plastic thing is an example of a problem that has to be solved with a free market solution. Regulating plastic usage is obscene and horrible."
So you are saying
1. free market solution doesn't mean "no regulation"
2. plastic thing has to be solved with free market solution
3. plastic usage should not be regulated
How is this not contradictory?
Also, if for you "free markets" is only partially free, then you're using words arbitrarily. Why one kind of economical action should be allowed and others not? Why some restraints are ok and others not? How do justifications for these connect with freedom of the market? Why call it free if it's not even supposed to be completely free but only to a degree and in a sense you want it to be free?
"Make a better material that does the job better if you want to help the environment."
Otherwise, let's get our children and grandchildren killed by environmental crisis? If you're not a chemical engineer that can figure out a better alternative to plastic, then say yes to environmental crisis?
"The only purpose of government should be to prevent the restriction of individual freedoms."
And as you know, "restriction of individual freedoms" is very difficult to define comprehensively. Anything you do can be seen restricting other people's freedoms. I could say that you're restricting other people's freedoms by promoting environmental crisis that will destroy their life, so the government should prevent you somehow.
The government is solving the problems in the sphere of the social. Preventing social problems from becoming actual is solving social problems. Making people to cooperate is solving social problems.
Ahm, ok... I might say something on the contrary, that it is actally very reasonable to take care of the climate and try to minimize the awaiting enivronmental crisis that can destroy our, and our children's and grandchildren's lives.
"Parts of the market are free in a mixed market system so claiming me saying "free market solutions" means I think there's no regulation is obtuse. The plastic thing is an example of a problem that has to be solved with a free market solution. Regulating plastic usage is obscene and horrible."
So you are saying
1. free market solution doesn't mean "no regulation"
2. plastic thing has to be solved with free market solution
3. plastic usage should not be regulated
How is this not contradictory?
Also, if for you "free markets" is only partially free, then you're using words arbitrarily. Why one kind of economical action should be allowed and others not? Why some restraints are ok and others not? How do justifications for these connect with freedom of the market? Why call it free if it's not even supposed to be completely free but only to a degree and in a sense you want it to be free?
"Make a better material that does the job better if you want to help the environment."
Otherwise, let's get our children and grandchildren killed by environmental crisis? If you're not a chemical engineer that can figure out a better alternative to plastic, then say yes to environmental crisis?
"The only purpose of government should be to prevent the restriction of individual freedoms."
And as you know, "restriction of individual freedoms" is very difficult to define comprehensively. Anything you do can be seen restricting other people's freedoms. I could say that you're restricting other people's freedoms by promoting environmental crisis that will destroy their life, so the government should prevent you somehow.
The government is solving the problems in the sphere of the social. Preventing social problems from becoming actual is solving social problems. Making people to cooperate is solving social problems.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.