ggppjj

If we're talking about Digital Rights Management, steam is acting in that role to manage your digital rights on the steam platform. They could allow you to download games without requiring an account login or client download, and they instead do not. They could allow you to download free games from the client or the website without requiring a login, and they do not.

GOG's website is also DRM for the same reason. It won't allow you to download games that aren't licensed digitally to your account, including free games. GOG has DRM-free games and installers fairly universally beyond that first check, and that means you can download them from alternative sources, but downloading from GOG 100% requires interacting with DRM.

To be direct: I don't care that Steam is DRM because it's minimally invasive and I currently trust Valve enough to use an operating system made by them as a daily driver. There are very few companies I'd say that about.

The Steam client is DRM at its core, even if it's acceptable DRM. I think it's important not to allow your thinking to shift from the reality that it is DRM just because it's personally acceptable.

I don't mind it, I will simp for Valve all day long, and if a company requires you to log in to an account with their server to check whether your account has the digital entitlement to then allow you to access a file or not, that's digital rights management.

I want to give the perspective that from a technical standpoint, even free games on steam require the steam client to install and while the license to play the game is free steam is licensing your account to own the game. The game doesn't require steam after that and usually this means the game is available elsewhere, but for the specific case of "free games on steam", steam is still acting to manage digital rights.

You're right about them going bust, but they were bought by Keurig/Dr. Pepper and is in stores, just probably none near you. My local Walmart has it.

I've seen some arbitration agreements stating that you can't collaborate with other customers who are affected by the same issue, requiring each customer to have a different attorney.

Oh no, I did it anyways and collaborated with other customers online. Oh well guess we gotta arbitrate that now.

Another commenter here: the double reply thing was likely an app bugging on sending a reply.

I was an avid reader as a kid, and took the Accelerated Reader tests almost religiously.

I switched school systems one year and jammed out all the tests I could remember.

Got an award at the end of the year. A neat little blue engraved plaque. Not sure where it ended up.

Sorry, this comment was mainly just providing the previous user with a correction because they seemed to think that the other person that they were replying to was talking about forcing people to use phone apps, which I assume we all agree is bad and would likely work if there were a concentrated push for it.

Concerning your points after "using the browser": I want websites to use replaceState and manage their own intra-page navigation with a cookie. They can still intercept the back button as they do now, but they should only get the single history entry until they switch to a new page, if they ever do.

I don't think I'm disputing your facts, I was responding to the scenario you presented which was, essentially, "what about email". I would say it's fair that my opinion on a canonical browser history is solid and unlikely to change, though.

I think the word 'app' was being used in place of 'webapp' there, which is the general target audience for this feature.

I don't think that email and browser history are similar enough to make a meaningful comparison, honestly.

Maybe someone could say that, but I am not.

I see a specific instance of a specific bad feature being specifically abused. I don't care to entertain whatabouts.

I accept that it's how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.

I'm frustrated that removing bad functionality is being treated as a slippery slope with obviously bad and impossible jokes as the examples chosen.

I see a bad feature being abused, and I don't see the removal of that bad feature as a dangerous path to getting rid of email. I don't ascribe the same weight that you seem to towards precedent in this matter.