When some of us challenge them and say... If you want to down vote spam, plagiarism, or abusive behavior (doxing, trolling, etc). then you likely won't hear much complaint.
It does seem rather strange to me that the oligarch vigilantes DON'T DOWNVOTE ALL gifs and memes, which are, by any measure, both "spam" and "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement".
Some of them even use copyrighted images as avatars and homepage backgrounds.
Yep. I cite every image that is not my creation except those that have the citation already written into the image themselves.
Some of the images I use to make the images I create myself I fail to cite. If someone wanted to go after me that'd be the legit path to do it. That would force me to cite all of the random images I grab and use and I would do so if it was deemed necessary by people.
ONLY IF THE "ENFORCERS" ALSO DO THE EXACT SAME THING.
Some things are covered under Fair Use and other things too. Also, does Copyright apply to the Internet is my question. My rebuttal is that it depends on many different things as enforcing Copyright on the Internet is a Pandora Box in that there is an invisible line between what is perceived as infringing copyright and the technical violation of copyright through the very nature of how computers automatically copy data to a sea of computers, different servers, the data is like water and it floods into the RAM, the cache, the CPU, the GPU, information and data is literally and technically being copied and pasted in zeroes and ones as in binary code like water in the ocean as it flows through the Internet, as text, audio, video, files, photos, move around the Internet, it is technically being copied without the approval of the owners of the copyright, the patent, the trademark, etc, whatever the case might be, the data is literally being copied trillions of times or countless times through so many different hard drives and is being mirrored and copied without permission by agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, MI6, other organizations, governments, groups, Facebook, Google, God knows who else, meaning it is crazy hypocrisy to punish some people for alleged copyright infringement while simultaneously ignore agencies who are copying the data and storing the data and selling the data and some of that may be violating the 4th amendment and other things. I can talk all day about copyright and I see it as a crazy thing by the very nature of how the Internet works in that data works differently than a tangible and physical painting for example. And would it be copyright to take a photo of a painting? My argument would be no. See, with tangible items, you want to buy the painting. And a photo of a painting is not the painting. So, if I sell the photo, people should not buy it but they can if they want. But the photo is not the painting. But if I sold my photo and said it was a painting, then that might be considered to be a lie, a scam. Then bring forth the copyright violation as I was pretending to sell something which was not what it really was. Well, I guess it all depends. I could say more but I will stop for now.
GIPHY DOES NOT OWN ANY OF THE COPYRIGHTS TO ANY OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IMAGES THAT ARE THE BASIS FOR ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL.
skip to 2086 seconds,
I see in this video that this guy mentions all the crazy laws out there, all the crazy cases of people suing each other for insane things.