Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Behold the NFT Shiat List - Otherwise decent people who are issuing NFTs   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Followup, shot  
•       •       •

836 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 19 Jan 2022 at 6:05 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-18 11:32:56 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2022-01-19 6:37:58 AM  
NSFW
Aphex Twin - Windowlicker (official video) 1080p HD
Youtube UBS4Gi1y_nc
 
2022-01-19 6:58:03 AM  
"otherwise decent people"

If they're shilling NFTs, they're twats by definition.
 
2022-01-19 6:58:51 AM  
What a miserable person she must be.
 
2022-01-19 7:01:58 AM  
laphamsquarterly.orgView Full Size

Step right up, step right up and see the magnificent NFTs!  Only 5 cents admission!
 
2022-01-19 7:23:48 AM  
Are they issuing an NFT for the shiat list?  Because that would be amusing.
 
2022-01-19 7:36:30 AM  

The Weekend Baker: [laphamsquarterly.org image 400x330]
Step right up, step right up and see the magnificent NFTs!  Only 5 cents admission!


He is in the afterlife thinking "Why didn't I have technology like that to grift the rubes back in my day???".
 
2022-01-19 7:47:47 AM  

Mr_Vimes: "otherwise decent people"

If they're shilling NFTs, they're twats by definition.


Hell. I'm ok with people selling random stuff as NFTs. It's the morans that think they're "investing" that I'm unsure about.

I'm actually on the john typing this - might make a NFT of.... Something that looks like a cross between Freddy Krueger and Sarah Jessica Parker.

A fool and his money and all that...
 
2022-01-19 8:18:14 AM  
Get the fark over yourself, Natalie.
 
2022-01-19 8:24:44 AM  
I would like to draw a distinction between people who are leveraging this stupid shiat as another avenue to shill their already existing brand, and people who are "dealing in", "trading" or worst "selling" NFTs as investment vehicles.

It appears that Natalie Weizenbaum would prefer not to draw that distinction for some reason.
 
2022-01-19 8:41:24 AM  

BeesNuts: I would like to draw a distinction between people who are leveraging this stupid shiat as another avenue to shill their already existing brand, and people who are "dealing in", "trading" or worst "selling" NFTs as investment vehicles.


There's another classification: people who think that because the NFT itself is unique it gives them exclusive rights to whatever the NFT is for.  See the Dune book NFT hilarity.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/01/17/nft-group-shamed-jodorowsky-dune-book-copyright
 
2022-01-19 8:56:52 AM  

freakdiablo: Mr_Vimes: "otherwise decent people"

If they're shilling NFTs, they're twats by definition.

Hell. I'm ok with people selling random stuff as NFTs. It's the morans that think they're "investing" that I'm unsure about.

I'm actually on the john typing this - might make a NFT of.... Something that looks like a cross between Freddy Krueger and Sarah Jessica Parker.

A fool and his money and all that...


Great. Now I actually want Netflix to make Nightmare In The City.
 
2022-01-19 9:07:25 AM  
To those wondering what the fark are NFTs:

What the hell are NFT's?
Youtube XwMjPWOailQ
 
2022-01-19 9:08:03 AM  

uttertosh: Great. Now I actually want Netflix to make Nightmare In The City.


Now that you mention it, I think I do to.
 
2022-01-19 9:10:41 AM  
It's like being deeply disappointed in people selling real estate on the moon.
 
2022-01-19 9:25:18 AM  
Stolen from the interwebs:
I was very little, someone purchased a star for me. Like, a real star... out somewhere in the galaxy. I had a photo of the star framed on my wall, with hand written coordinates of the star's location, and a little blurb about how it belonged to me.

The company that sold this "to me" no longer exists. In fact, many companies were in this business, selling stars, keeping registration of who owned what stars. There was no way of knowing if your star had already been sold to someone previously, no way to prevent it being sold again, and there was no way to physically claim your property. Virtually all of those companies are now defunct, and their ledgers are buried in the sands of time.

So anyways, enjoy your NFTs.
 
2022-01-19 9:30:42 AM  

TappingTheVein: To those wondering what the fark are NFTs:

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/XwMjPWOailQ]


Wife and I got talking about NFTs again last night due to the chucklefarks who thought they somehow owned Jodorowsky's Dune. I was making comparisons to pogs, how they were all stamped with slightly different variations of the same dumb early-mid 90s visuals like 8 balls, Yin Yangs, some other bullshiat, but somehow dumber since at least pogs are real tangible objects you could do something with. "Okay but why do you keep saying apes? Is that like an acronym for something?" She'd somehow managed to never see any of the Bored Ape Yacht Club bullshiat.

/thanks for reading my blog
 
2022-01-19 9:37:39 AM  

zeroflight222: BeesNuts: I would like to draw a distinction between people who are leveraging this stupid shiat as another avenue to shill their already existing brand, and people who are "dealing in", "trading" or worst "selling" NFTs as investment vehicles.

There's another classification: people who think that because the NFT itself is unique it gives them exclusive rights to whatever the NFT is for.  See the Dune book NFT hilarity.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/01/17/nft-group-shamed-jodorowsky-dune-book-copyright


"and that burning the book would be an "incredible marketing stunt which could be recorded on video", with the video itself sold as an NFT."

Someobe needs to out these people and publicly shame them for being so pig-farking ignorant.
 
2022-01-19 10:23:11 AM  

UNC_Samurai: zeroflight222: BeesNuts: I would like to draw a distinction between people who are leveraging this stupid shiat as another avenue to shill their already existing brand, and people who are "dealing in", "trading" or worst "selling" NFTs as investment vehicles.

There's another classification: people who think that because the NFT itself is unique it gives them exclusive rights to whatever the NFT is for.  See the Dune book NFT hilarity.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/01/17/nft-group-shamed-jodorowsky-dune-book-copyright

"and that burning the book would be an "incredible marketing stunt which could be recorded on video", with the video itself sold as an NFT."

Someobe needs to out these people and publicly shame them for being so pig-farking ignorant.


After reading more about it, it's not quite as stupid as it first seemed.  Still stupid though.  What they bought was the manuscript/pitch for the infamous Dune movie that was never completed.  Not Herbert's book.  And after buying the manuscript they wanted to profit off it; NFTs being the most convenient at the moment.
 
2022-01-19 10:48:03 AM  
Who the fark keeps lists of people to bear grudges against for dabbling in NFTs?

Like, I'm no NFT fan, the whole thing is just another techbro grift, but I'm not going to click a twitter link to read a list of people I should be mad at for engaging with that market. There are an infinite number of issues more deserving of the space in one's head.

This is an iconic example of the kind of garbage Twitter acts as a catalyst for. Stop directing traffic their way.
 
2022-01-19 10:51:01 AM  
Sam Harris is trying to issue an nft
 
2022-01-19 11:01:19 AM  

madgonad: uttertosh: Great. Now I actually want Netflix to make Nightmare In The City.

Now that you mention it, I think I do to.


Good. Now we're almost halfway there with our 'pitch' to the NF producers, we need to hash-out who we have play which roles. I'm actually quite set on SJP playing Fredrica, but entirely unsure about Mr Big. Thoughts?
 
2022-01-19 11:02:48 AM  

zeroflight222: UNC_Samurai: zeroflight222: BeesNuts: I would like to draw a distinction between people who are leveraging this stupid shiat as another avenue to shill their already existing brand, and people who are "dealing in", "trading" or worst "selling" NFTs as investment vehicles.

There's another classification: people who think that because the NFT itself is unique it gives them exclusive rights to whatever the NFT is for.  See the Dune book NFT hilarity.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/01/17/nft-group-shamed-jodorowsky-dune-book-copyright

"and that burning the book would be an "incredible marketing stunt which could be recorded on video", with the video itself sold as an NFT."

Someobe needs to out these people and publicly shame them for being so pig-farking ignorant.

After reading more about it, it's not quite as stupid as it first seemed.  Still stupid though.  What they bought was the manuscript/pitch for the infamous Dune movie that was never completed.  Not Herbert's book.  And after buying the manuscript they wanted to profit off it; NFTs being the most convenient at the moment.


Except there are other copies out there, and the project is well-documented. They didn't buy the only copy, nor did they buy the rights to the art created specifically for it (which has also been replublished elsewhere as well).
 
2022-01-19 11:22:14 AM  

KingBiefWhistle: Wife and I got talking about NFTs again last night due to the chucklefarks who thought they somehow owned Jodorowsky's Dune


Oh those were a whole different level of stupid:

The Stupidest Purchase in History - A Three Million Dollar Crypto Blunder
Youtube kZ4P3LeUs0o
 
2022-01-19 11:22:44 AM  
What should I be upset with today? I don't want to actually do anything about it or contribute any sort of meaningful action to change that which will upset me beyond a post or two on social media, but I must be outraged about some injustice. The more obscure the better, please advise.
 
2022-01-19 11:37:40 AM  
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an NFT.  It's just a way to prove that you are the owner of a digital 'thing'.  That thing could be a .jpg, or something more substantial like a videogame skin, mp3, movie, access to a website, or even something like a concert ticket.

NFTs are probably here to stay.  The implementations of the actual systems are where abuses may happen, but nothing to do with the technology itself.
 
2022-01-19 11:42:01 AM  
I can't get upset over artists trying to make money. There's a lot of intrinsically bad things regarding crypto, but artists trying to cash in over this current fad? No, this is fine.
 
2022-01-19 11:53:06 AM  

Lord Bear: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an NFT.  It's just a way to prove that you are the owner of a digital 'thing'. That thing could be a .jpg, or something more substantial like a videogame skin, mp3, movie, access to a website, or even something like a concert ticket.

NFTs are probably here to stay.  The implementations of the actual systems are where abuses may happen, but nothing to do with the technology itself.


But that is not what NFTs do.
 
2022-01-19 12:04:02 PM  
Bennie Crabtree:
It's just a way to prove that you are the owner of a digital 'thing'.
But that is not what NFTs do.


In most implementations, that's exactly what they do.  It doesn't necessarily convey intellectual property rights, but it does give the user the right to view and use the digital item associated with the token.  Similar to how owning a CD gives you the right to listen to it, but not to claim ownership of the actual songs.

NFTs are a fairly broad space, with different use cases and implementations.  So your mileage may vary.
 
2022-01-19 12:36:17 PM  

Lord Bear: Bennie Crabtree:
It's just a way to prove that you are the owner of a digital 'thing'.
But that is not what NFTs do.

In most implementations, that's exactly what they do.  It doesn't necessarily convey intellectual property rights, but it does give the user the right to view and use the digital item associated with the token.  Similar to how owning a CD gives you the right to listen to it, but not to claim ownership of the actual songs.

NFTs are a fairly broad space, with different use cases and implementations.  So your mileage may vary.


An NFT itself doesn't give any permissions unless you embed something from an entity able to give those permissions.  As an example, I have some digital art behind a paywall (think stock photos) where you have to pay to use them.  JoeBob gets hold of a copy of one of the images, puts it on his Dropbox, and creates an NFT for it.  The buyer of the NFT doesn't get usage rights just because JoeBob made an NFT of it.
 
2022-01-19 12:43:32 PM  

Lord Bear: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an NFT.  It's just a way to prove that you are the owner of a digital 'thing'.  That thing could be a .jpg, or something more substantial like a videogame skin, mp3, movie, access to a website, or even something like a concert ticket.

NFTs are probably here to stay.  The implementations of the actual systems are where abuses may happen, but nothing to do with the technology itself.


No.

NFTs are proof of nothing besides of themselves. There is no relationship between any art that they are paired with and the NFT. If a business chooses to equate ownership of an NFT with the ownership of anything else (say a game or a piece of DLC) they certainly can, but why would they? Why would a content creator sell an NFT which they will allow to be used as a credential for using their content which can then be sold to someone else? They don't want people selling among themselves - they want their users coming to THEIR point of sale.

For example, what if games on Steam were NFTs? That means you can sell your license of a game to somebody else and that new owner could use it to play the game that they never paid Steam (or the game developer) for. The odds of that ever happening are zero. A business may provide a 'complimentary NFT' for marketing purposes, but only the original purchaser would have any rights.

Now I can think of a good use for NFTs - event tickets. Tickets are already unique numbers within the ticket issuing authority that technically exist only as a proof of purchase which only has a use when requesting entrance. Changing that to the Blockchain would be easy. However that will never happen BECAUSE TICKETMASTER WANTS TO CONTROL THE SECONDARY MARKET.
 
2022-01-19 1:09:08 PM  

madgonad: NFTs are proof of nothing besides of themselves. There is no relationship between any art that they are paired with and the NFT. If a business chooses to equate ownership of an NFT with the ownership of anything else (say a game or a piece of DLC) they certainly can, but why would they? Why would a content creator sell an NFT which they will allow to be used as a credential for using their content which can then be sold to someone else? They don't want people selling among themselves - they want their users coming to THEIR point of sale.


Again, it depends on the implementation.  The pointless .jpg NFTs that are everywhere do work like that.

For more substantial media, there are other implementations.  Audius is working on a blockchain spotify-like service for musicians. It will have 'flavors' of NFT tokens, depending on how the artist would like to distribute music.  An NFT may give you access to 10 streams of an album, and a different one and you own it outright like an iTunes purchase.  But the artist has control on how much something costs, and get paid in real time with no middleman.  So Kanye might set his new album at 100 bucks a stream just to be a dick...

As nice as it would be to NFT-ize videogames, it won't happen, at least in the big leagues.  I can see some small indie devs doing it just to create buzz.  Other media like movies might see a one-ticket sort of NFT.  Buy the NFT and have the choice of seeing it in the theater, or on D+ etc.

Blockchain tickets are happening, there are a few companies working on it.  Any chance to screw over ticketmaster is good with me.
 
2022-01-19 1:38:58 PM  

EvilElecBlanket: What a miserable person she must be.


I can't imagine living a life of such comfort and privilege that I would seek out a list of people to be disappointed in. To have so few actual problems to deal with that someone selling nfts can be a priority.
 
2022-01-19 2:23:25 PM  

madgonad: Lord Bear: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an NFT.  It's just a way to prove that you are the owner of a digital 'thing'.  That thing could be a .jpg, or something more substantial like a videogame skin, mp3, movie, access to a website, or even something like a concert ticket.

NFTs are probably here to stay.  The implementations of the actual systems are where abuses may happen, but nothing to do with the technology itself.

No.

NFTs are proof of nothing besides of themselves. There is no relationship between any art that they are paired with and the NFT. If a business chooses to equate ownership of an NFT with the ownership of anything else (say a game or a piece of DLC) they certainly can, but why would they? Why would a content creator sell an NFT which they will allow to be used as a credential for using their content which can then be sold to someone else? They don't want people selling among themselves - they want their users coming to THEIR point of sale.

For example, what if games on Steam were NFTs? That means you can sell your license of a game to somebody else and that new owner could use it to play the game that they never paid Steam (or the game developer) for. The odds of that ever happening are zero. A business may provide a 'complimentary NFT' for marketing purposes, but only the original purchaser would have any rights.

Now I can think of a good use for NFTs - event tickets. Tickets are already unique numbers within the ticket issuing authority that technically exist only as a proof of purchase which only has a use when requesting entrance. Changing that to the Blockchain would be easy. However that will never happen BECAUSE TICKETMASTER WANTS TO CONTROL THE SECONDARY MARKET.


What's a blockchain?
 
2022-01-19 3:10:38 PM  

Lord Bear: Again, it depends on the implementation.


If the "implementation" is what matters, then you've definitely made a big logical leap deciding she is incorrect about who deserves ire.

LOLITROLU: EvilElecBlanket: What a miserable person she must be.

I can't imagine living a life of such comfort and privilege that I would seek out a list of people to be disappointed in. To have so few actual problems to deal with that someone selling nfts can be a priority.


Or you can pause and think about the social value that she believes the project has, which is worthy of her time and labour.
 
2022-01-19 4:22:36 PM  

Lord Bear: For more substantial media, there are other implementations.  Audius is working on a blockchain spotify-like service for musicians. It will have 'flavors' of NFT tokens, depending on how the artist would like to distribute music.  An NFT may give you access to 10 streams of an album, and a different one and you own it outright like an iTunes purchase.  But the artist has control on how much something costs, and get paid in real time with no middleman.  So Kanye might set his new album at 100 bucks a stream just to be a dick...


Yeah, that's really just another example of a business using an NFT as a credential. Consider each NFT as the unlock code for a service. It is only useful for an long as the service chooses to honor it. I suspect they may have no legal requirement to continue honoring it. So it really works as a receipt for prior purchases. Another step toward company scrip I guess.

Lord Bear: Blockchain tickets are happening, there are a few companies working on it.  Any chance to screw over ticketmaster is good with me.


I agree. So does everybody else. Just because 99.999% of America wants to get rid of Ticketmaster isn't going to bring them a single inch closer to going away. They are an excellent example of what is wrong with monopolies.
 
2022-01-20 2:45:04 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Lord Bear: Again, it depends on the implementation.

If the "implementation" is what matters, then you've definitely made a big logical leap deciding she is incorrect about who deserves ire.

LOLITROLU: EvilElecBlanket: What a miserable person she must be.

I can't imagine living a life of such comfort and privilege that I would seek out a list of people to be disappointed in. To have so few actual problems to deal with that someone selling nfts can be a priority.

Or you can pause and think about the social value that she believes the project has, which is worthy of her time and labour.


I can't presume to know what she believes, or how she values her time and labor.
I can only know what value I place on the project (less than nothing), and how I value my time and labor (more than nothing).
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.