Some governments are just pathetic and sad... I don't even... Ughh

Easy: Binding of Isaac

Ooof, watched that yeeeeaaaaars ago. I remember it being pretty psycho and disturbing. Not sure if this still holds up today but it's definitely not everyones cup of tea.

Yeah that didn't fly at all ..

But isn't this kinda like the one click hosters like Rapidshare or Megaupload? Those services (at least the big ones I think) have been taken down for copyright infringement although they had the benefit of the doubt because data was stored fragmented and encrypted. Or am I not seeing something important?

Hey thanks for engaging in this discussion!

I think you have a point asking "Where to draw the line?" Obviously I don't have a simple answer to this question because it would just be an arbitrary line to draw. Also this matter can't be discussed with Enyas wealth in mind alone but with wealth in general.

I think to answer this question it would be necessary to know who (as in "the richest 0.x % ) would have to abandon how much of their wealth to reach a certain goal for the poorest x % and as long as we can agree that the benefit outweighs the cost (maybe even in a significant manner to "allow" a certain amount of inequality) it is save to draw the line there.

I'm speculating now, but maybe we would come to the conclusion that it would only take a little amount of wealth of the richest few people to lift the poorest of the poorest out of severe hunger. I think we could agree that this would be very reasonable because the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost. Maybe even providing basic housing to all people who need it would cost only a neglectable number of people some of their huge wealth. This could also be a possible line then.

So as you see I'd try to draw a line using some utilitarianistic criteria.

You do know that the two main devs are working full time on Lemmy and are getting paid to do so by the NLnet foundation?

The software developers equivalent of my argument above would be a developers who's getting paid for their dayjob but still does some work for an open source project in their free time.

It's not about never doing anything for free but about stopping getting paid at all.

I think the problem here is: When you realize that what you're doing has value to others you won't suddenly start doing it for free even if you can easily afford doing so. There may be exceptions from this like doing charity concerts as a musician, doing pro bono cases as a lawyer or helping your friend renovate their flat as a house painter and decorator. But in general I am pretty sure you won't go from taking money to doing your craft for free.

Well some would argue that accumulating this much wealth is the wrongdoing in this story.

With her wealth she easily belongs to the top 0.1 % wealthiest people in the us. I think this amount of wealth surpassed the "It's okay to have nice things" phase and quickly got to the "You should take some responsibility with your inexplicable wealth!"