The Bogosity Podcast, early and ad-free!
Become a subscriber at Patreon, SubscribeStar, or Discord.
Use the links at donate.bogosity.tv.
Welcome to the Bogosity Podcast for the week of February 8 2026,
the podcast that triggers the silent alarm.
This is your host, Shane Killian. Let's etherize the News of the Bogus.
So lots of people are triggered by the big news from Tesla.
And this one's getting pushback from both Tesla fans and Tesla haters!
Tesla has discontinued Autopilot in the US.
It has also discontinued sales of Full Self Driving, which went for $8,000.
FSD is now only available as a subscription for $99 a month.
Autopilot was the older technology, designed for use on highways,
which could keep the car in its lane as well as keep its speed and distance from the car ahead of it.
Instead, new Teslas in the US only come with Traffic-Aware Cruise Control,
which is basically Autopilot without the lanekeeping.
Autopilot is still available outside the US,
as well as an Enhanced Autopilot which includes lane-switching and navigation.
Elon Musk posted to X:
"I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD's capabilities improve.
The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD)."
And that's how outlets like Mashable get all triggered and say, quote:
"The move is likely another desperate Tesla effort to push customers to purchase FSD.
But it's a very costly change for users who want Autosteer and don't really care about FSD
(which is still beta software and does not offer autonomous driving, despite Musk having promised it for years),
as they now have to pay $99 per month to get this feature."
Regular listeners of this podcast should have already guessed by now what the real reason is.
Have you guessed it by now? Keep listening...
Mashable also said, quote:
"It's worth noting that Tesla also offers Enhanced Autopilot in some countries outside of the U.S."
Oh, does it now? How interesting. And why might that be?
Podcast listeners know the real reason!
Yeah, I'm gonna tease it a bit more; bear with me as I finish making fun of Mashable and get into The New York Post.
They called their article: "Elon Musk's Tesla pulls plug on Autopilot system—here's why."
And the reason? As we covered on the previous podcast, literally the last one before this one,
the California DMV put Tesla on a 60-day deadline to get rid of Autopilot, which they said is misleading,
or face a 30-day suspension of its retail sales license.
They said it was misleading because drivers could not let the car drive autonomously without their input,
even though that's never what the word autopilot meant, in aviation or anywhere else.
Unless, of course, they're getting their information from the movie Airplane!
Seems like The New York Post is the only one that gets it!
Funny how all the Tesla haters made fun of the company since that happened— and then promptly forgot all about it!
Anyway, this is another way that government— especially leftist ones like California—
really love screwing up the ability of people and companies to do business.
This is all California's fault. I don't see any way around that.
Especially when you consider that the Autopilot feature will continue on cars that have previously been sold.
If it were really Tesla taking a feature away just to profit from FSD subscriptions,
they would have removed it from all of their vehicles, which they could do with a simple software update.
Why didn't they? Because California didn't order them to. Simple as that.
Fortunately, the state DMV can only regulate sales, not subscriptions, so FSD is at least still available.
It's clear they wanted Tesla to remove it completely, but they just don't have the authority.
We'll see what happens on the 14th, which is the last day Tesla has to appeal—
and, not coincidentally, the last day you'll be able to purchase FSD.
Somehow, I have the feeling this is just the beginning.
Presenting: the greatest game this side of Yuggoth!
You are H.P. Lovecraft's cat, and your name is Ni***
...Right. We can't say that on a podcast.
Anyway, that's the point: Your name is a joke.
So now, you are out for revenge. You become...the NecronomiCat!
Using the Necronomicon, you come to the present day to buy a gat.
That's a gun. For a cat.
It's a phat cat gat.
But the Necronomicon is treacherous, and it let in Lovecraft's monsters.
Now, in a crumbling world, you must fight!
Build your team, buy guns and armor,
buy items of dubious legality, defeat the bosses of each level.
Then take Lovecraft down!
Play NecronomiCat! The link is at cat.bogosity.tv.
Yeah, we're doing cat.bogosity.tv, not...that other one.
What, you want me to get kicked off the Internet or something?
One of the reasons why I never bought into the net neutrality movement was the things they weren't very neutral on.
VPNs were one of them.
It really seems like it was all a smokescreen for government regulation of the Internet,
and of course copyright is a big enemy of liberty here.
We've talked before about the Anne Frank diary and how it's reprehensible
that it was ever copyrighted at all, let alone 81 years later!
Even in terrible countries, works become PD after 70 years after the death of the author.
Since Anne Frank died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945, the diary should have become PD in 2016.
But a year before that happened, the Anne Frank Fonds, a Swiss foundation who owns the copyright
having been bequeathed to them after her father Otto Frank had died,
announced that since Otto had edited the entries and reshaping them into a, quote: "kind of collage,"
he was a co-author, and since he died in 1980, they'll keep the copyright until 2050!
Despite the fact that, up until that point, they had Anne Frank listed as the sole author.
As if that weren't bad enough, they also listed Mirjam Pressler as a co-editor,
and since she died in 2019, the diary will remain copyrighted until 2089!
144 years after Anne Frank wrote it!
Unless, of course, they can come up with another co-editor!
But the Dutch Anne Frank Foundation doesn't like that.
We're with them, by the way.
So they posted a scholarly edition of her diary using geoblocking techniques,
wherein visitors from the Netherlands are given the following notice:
"We're sorry... Unfortunately, this site is not available in your country.
The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries,
due to copyright considerations.
The edition is published online by the Association for Research and Access to Historical Texts."
That's in Belgium, one of the countries where the diary is public domain.
By the way, if you're wondering if the diary is PD in the US, well... I couldn't get a definitive answer on that.
Copyright law is just way to vague and confusing,
which in any proper system of justice would make the whole thing void!
But the site is not available in the US. Browse there and you'll see the notice.
But it remains available in PD countries.
But boy, did that piss off Anne Frank Fonds!
They sued, saying that since VPNs are a thing, people can bypass the block,
and if a block isn't 100% bypass-proof, the content shouldn't be made available to anyone.
The Dutch lower court dismissed it, as did the appeals court.
So now, the case is before the Dutch Supreme Court.
This is about more than the copyright status of the diary.
This is about the legality of VPNs and what you and I are allowed to do online.
Basically, if this goes the wrong way,
no matter how legal it is for you and me to do something in our own countries online,
if it's illegal anywhere, we should be blocked from it!
The Dutch Supreme Court has referred three questions up to the EU's Court of Justice:
1. Must the Copyright Directive be interpreted in such a way that a publication of a work on the internet
can only be regarded as a communication to the public in a certain country
if the publication is directed to the public in that country?
2. Can there be a communication to the public in a certain country if, by means of geo-blocking,
it has been ensured that the website on which the work is published
can only be accessed by circumventing the blocking measure
with the help of a VPN or similar service?
3. If the possibility of circumventing the blocking measure
means that the work published on the internet is communicated to the public,
is that communication then made by the person who published the work on the internet,
even though the intervention of the provider of the VPN or similar service in question
is required for taking cognizance of that communication?
Now, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice has published an opinion
showing that he's probably the only sane person in the room.
There is no such thing as a protection that can never be broken or bypassed.
That in and of itself shouldn't mean that a publisher is liable.
He pointed out, quote: "geo-blocking is one of the digital rights management
instruments designed to protect copyright, which are themselves protected by EU law.
In particular, the Court has held that,
by adopting technical measures against the framing of a protected work made available on the internet,
the copyright holder limits the circle of persons to whom the work is communicated
to the users of the website where it was originally made available."
Wow, consistency! How often have we seen that in the EU?
Quote: "The fact that users manage to circumvent a geo-blocking measure
put in place to restrict access to a protected work does not, in itself,
mean that the entity that put the geo-blocking in place communicates that work to the public
in a territory where access to it is supposed to be blocked.
Such an interpretation would make it impossible to manage copyright on the internet on a territorial basis
and would mean that any communication to the public on the internet would be global."
And he had to deal with some arguments that were pretty zany, quote:
"I am unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the applicant in the main proceedings.
First, the fact that the website is in Dutch
is not, in itself, an indication of the intention to address the public of the Netherlands,
since it is the original language of Anne Frank's diary (and not a translation)."
More importantly, since VPNs are service providers, they should have conduit protections. Quote:
"While VPN service providers act as intermediaries,
their intervention does not involve the communication of copyrighted works, but is limited to Internet access.
Indeed, VPN services are legally accessible technical services
which users may, however, use for unlawful purposes.
The mere fact that those or similar services may be used for such purposes
is not sufficient to establish that the service providers themselves communicate the protected work to the public."
Of course, this isn't binding, but he is their Advocate General for a reason.
But if they go the other way, if the mere possibility of getting around a block is infringing,
then basically every gaming and streaming site,
as well as any site that has to use geoblocking, including YouTube, would be affected.
And even worse, if VPNs were liable for the actions of their users,
then basic privacy protections online would be destroyed.
Here's hoping the EU makes the right decision for once.
If you're on the Wi-Fi in a coffee shop or hotel,
anyone on that network can get access to your traffic.
Do you really trust all of those strangers?
For that matter, do you really trust your ISP?
A VPN can protect you from prying eyes, disguise your location, and even foil government censors.
It's essential in this day and age, so go to vpn.bogosity.tv and you'll be taken to BoxPN.
Starting at just $2.99/month,
you can get unlimited high-speed connections to VPN servers all over the world,
and they don't log connections so your privacy is assured.
Travelling abroad, just VPN home and don't worry about what those other governments are doing.
Back at home, stop your ISP from traffic-shaping
and messing with the quality internet access you're paying good money for.
You can connect from multiple machines at once, including your smartphone or tablet,
and it supports all the secure standards including OpenVPN and SSTP.
Bypass censors and surveillance with your own secure VPN connection. Go to vpn.bogosity.tv.
Meanwhile, the UK continues to be idiots as they screech about unfair prices on Steam.
Steam, more than anything else, makes games available all over the world to people on a wide variety of platforms—
and we can't have that, now, can we?
Because that means that they're successful, and being successful, people are willing to pay for their service.
They can also "force" devs to not sell their titles earlier or for less money on rival platforms.
In other words, a no exclusivity agreement.
Which, by the way, only applies to Steam keys and other promotions—which the story doesn't seem to mention!
The action was brought by one person, Vicki Shotbolt, a children's rights advocate,
on behalf of all 14 million Steam users in the UK.
Yeah, we've covered how lawsuits like that go.
Wait— 14 million? That's one fifth of the population of the UK!
Are we really supposed to believe she speaks for all of them?
She also claims that Valve is charging an "excessive commission" of 30%,
for giving devs and gamers access to a massive and reliable
worldwide gaming infrastructure that they created.
30% is actually fairly standard,
and when you look at the amount that Valve puts into development of both software and hardware,
not really unreasonable.
I guess that's all 14 million gamers, except for the ones who actually find out about it and go and opt out.
Yes, you're automatically considered to be a part of this lawsuit by default!
If you stay in the lawsuit, you might be awarded as much as £40!
What have we said before about these kinds of lawsuits?
It'll be Shotbolt and the lawyers who make out like bandits,
pretending to be acting on behalf of these poor oppressed gamers!
Some aren't having it, like Endreader2725 on Reddit who posted:
"I tried emailing the Steam 'You Owe Us' campaign
to get my name and hopefully my Steam account removed from the lawsuit.
I honestly don't care about the £40 they're promising if they somehow win.
At this point it's pretty clear they're not going to reply,
which kind of says everything about their listening skills—basically non-existent.
Feels like they're just being greedy as usual and I want no part in it."
His email read: "I'm contacting you regarding the Steam You Owe Us claim.
I'd like to make it clear that I do not wish to be included in this action and I do not want to be represented by it.
After reading through the details, I don't feel that this claim reflects my own views or experiences as a gamer.
I've had a consistently positive experience using Steam over the years
and I'm comfortable with how the platform operates.
Because of that, I don't agree with the overall position being taken by this claim,
and I don't want my name or details associated with it.
Please confirm that I have been excluded from the claim and that my information will not be used now or in the future.
Thank you for your time."
PhoenixLandPirate wrote: "I would like to opt out of this claim.
Steam has competition: it competes against PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, Epic, GOG.
Valve sell consoles, where they openly say 'we want you to be able to play games bought from other stores on it.'
Valve has created competition in the market.
Linux has moved from .1% to over 3.5% of the desktop market, on Steam itself.
Because of Valve, I have more options, I can buy from GOG, Epic Games, and many other stores, and play on my computer.
Without Valve, I'd be stuck with PlayStation.
Valve pays to make Proton, they pay to improve KDE Plasma, graphics drivers, Fex, Vulkan, and many more projects,
that Epic Games and GOG can take full advantage of,
making more competition in store fronts, operating systems, software stacks, etc. and it benefits everyone.
So I would like to wash my hands of this claim."
Various commenters agreed, saying things like:
"I find it absolutely wild that they got the list of every UK steam user and decided to try and speak on behalf of us."
"Yep I don't want a yapping Muppet with a hand up his you know where to be speaking for me lol"
"My hope is that it gets completely squashed and costs the firm who are taking it to court a metric fuckton.
That way it becomes a precedent for not doing this kind of shit.
I hope. It's such a bullshit suit to file."
"Sounds like some of ya Brits are getting press ganged here.
Get those e-mails going to say that ya want no part in this scheme."
"Wow, this lawsuit is such bullshit. I hope this goes down like the Hindenburg."
"They just want that payout, greedy swine."
"I don't want a cut in my name by these fucking corporate vampires."
"A monopoly would imply that Valve is trying to cut out competitors.
In reality it's just that the competition is so bad that Steam is the only place to reliably sell games."
"I fucking hate these lawsuits, all of them. I don't care which company they're going after,
they are nothing more than a way to enrich lawyers."
There were also lots of users who said they could easily do the things the lawsuit claims Steam makes impossible,
like accessing DLC purchased outside of Steam on Steam and vice-versa.
Others were saying they should just get the £40 and use it to buy games on Steam!
Many were saying that this was a scheme from Epic Games, but I couldn't find any evidence of that.
I also couldn't find any gamers who were saying this lawsuit is a good thing.
If Steam really overcharged and did all these terrible things,
devs would be leaving them for GOG or Itch or wherever, and so would gamers.
I mean, not that I game all that much, but Steam's management and updates of games is FAR superior to Itch!
Another day, another bogus class-action lawsuit.
I want to tell you about the eyeglasses I've been wearing for years.
As people can see on my videos, I have a very strong prescription,
which makes glasses more expensive, especially when I need computer glasses,
reading glasses, prescription sunglasses,
and most expensively, progressive lenses for general everyday wear.
To save money while still getting quality glasses, I get them from Firmoo.
In fact, I just got a pair of progressives with high index aspherical lenses
in a nice pair of frames my wife loves, for just over $100.
It would have been $500 to get them through my eye doctor.
Not only do they look good, the glasses are durable.
I've worn many pairs for several years without problems.
All orders come with a 30-day return policy,
a 3-month warranty, and one-on-one customer service.
Go to firmoo.bogosity.tv any time you need quality glasses at a low price.
Once again, that's firmoo.bogosity.tv.
And now it's time to hemiquaverate this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
I guess we're sweeping Europe this week as France takes it for yet more anti-Musk antics.
France, like so much of Europe, really hates free speech and they've been part of the movement to take down X
ever since Elon Musk bought it back when it was Twitter,
exposed all of the government shenanigans going on in the background,
and undid the censorship, turning it into the closest thing we have to a free speech platform.
No, Gab is far from free speech, so don't even try it!
Now, the French police have raided the X Corp offices in Paris.
They also summoned Elon Musk and former X Corp CEO Linda Yaccarino.
The excuse is the usual accusations of CSAM material,
as well as "denial of crimes against humanity," whatever that's supposed to mean.
As near as I can figure, it's because they were able to make Grok deny the Holocaust.
You know, like you can make any AI agree with anything given the right prompt!
And then a few others that make it sound like they're some kind of organized crime ring.
They're accusing X of allowing foreign powers to manipulate its algorithm.
Even though that's exactly what Elon put a stop to!
It seems to be the latest morphing of their previous complaint,
all the work of Eric Bothorel,
who was also behind the government's proposal for mandatory COVID contact tracing.
In response, he tweeted:
"Happy that my complaint from January 2025 is being followed up with action!"
But as another user pointed out,
to date all such procedures initiated by prosecutors have ended in dismissals and discharges.
This is just more bandwagoning from people who want to drag us back 200 years because Grok could make dirty pictures.
There's no evidence it would make pictures of children,
but hey, let's just assume that it's the case and we can do what we like to them!
Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, tweeted that France is, quote:
"the only country in the world that is criminally persecuting
all social networks that give people some degree of freedom.
Don't be mistaken: this is not a free country."
People can use X to express opinions the French government doesn't like. That's all there is to this.
And they've built all of this on a scaffold of crazy conspiracy theories.
So all of that makes France this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
And now let's hypermetamorphosizationalify this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
And this week, it goes to the state of Washington for their attempt to ban ones and zeroes.
They want to ban a file. Information.
It doesn't matter if you share it or even use it. Just possess it.
It sounds like we're talking about CSAM or something, doesn't it? But no.
This bill would criminalize what they call Digital Firearm Manufacturing Code.
Yes, 3D files that let you 3D-print gun parts.
It's yet another way you know that the gun control nutbars don't believe a word they say.
They used to say it was all about gun manufacturers and the things they do to profit.
Because, you know, Sandy Hook would never have happened without Remington's advertisements.
But from the start of the country, it's always been legal to make your own firearm.
The way they wormed in things like taxes and serial numbers
was by saying that this was a commerce issue, not a Second Amendment issue.
But now, we have an entire category of "ghost guns,"
homemade guns which are oh-so-horrible because they don't have their wonderful serial numbers.
And the moral panic around this, as we've covered many times, is directly tied to 3D printing.
As the bill itself says, quote:
"The legislature finds the production of undetectable and untraceable firearms and firearm components
through three-dimensional printing and computer numerical control milling
presents a growing threat to public safety.
The legislature further finds the production of firearms by unlicensed manufacturers
allows prohibited individuals to evade background checks
and obtain firearms they could not otherwise lawfully obtain."
Because if anyone can just print gun parts at home and assemble their own guns, gun control is done for!
But I'm sorry, our rights don't cease to exist just because they become easier to exercise.
The bill expressly criminalizes, quote:
"any digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files
or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format
as a digital model that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer or a CNC machine
to manufacture or produce a firearm,
frame or receiver, unfinished frame or receiver, magazine, or firearm component."
Yes, just the instructions. The 3D files themselves. Illegal!
As long as it "may be used" to produce any component of a firearm, it's a criminal act to even possess the file!
It doesn't have to be used. It doesn't have to be functional.
It doesn't even have to make a complete gun. Just any part of one.
They're not banning the act of printing; they're banning mere possession of the file!
But it's even worse than that.
Crimes in the US are supposed to have a mens rea component;
that means they have to show the person has the mindfulness to commit a criminal act.
But this law says that such possession, quote:
"creates a rebuttable presumption of an intent to unlawfully distribute the code
or manufacture an unfinished frame or receiver in violation of this subsection."
In other words, the state does not have to prove that you intended to do anything wrong with it.
You have to prove you didn't! Guilty until proven innocent!
You don't even have to own a 3D printer or any filament or whatever. Just the 3D file itself.
Now, leave the Second Amendment aside for now; what about us artists?
I have a lot of these files, not to 3D print guns, but for when I use them for 3D art and VFX work.
They're the same files!
Maybe you've seen some of them in my videos.
Or prop makers? You want to make a stunt gun for an actor to hold, that cannot fire a bullet and can never be made to do so,
but you base it on the 3D model files to make it look realistic.
Wanna cosplay? Or make grips for an airsoft toy?
Wanna use a realistic 3D model of a gun in your video game?
Under this law, the state would not have to prove that you have it for the purpose of making a firearm.
They just have to show that the file may be used for such a purpose.
You didn't print it. You didn't even put it on Gumroad. Just have it on your computer.
And what about the people who host these files?
If those files are accessed in Washington state, even if they're not in Washington,
suddenly they fall under Washington's jurisdiction!
And the only way they'd be able to protect themselves is by getting rid of the files entirely,
so nobody can access them.
It's almost as if that's the idea!
So this is one more example of how all of this goes beyond maker culture or gun culture.
It goes from not merely being a Second Amendment issue to being a First Amendment issue!
If 3D models aren't protected speech, as they've been presumed to be but the courts haven't said,
this would upend everything about our modern digital world!
It wouldn't be a question of,
where do you draw the line between a purely visual render and conduct you can regulate?
There would be no line!
And any 3D artist who designs furniture, mechanical parts, tools,
wearables, or anything else now becomes a manufacturer in the eyes of the law, not an artist.
And that means you crank the gatekeeping up to 11!
You end up with blanket bans on mechanical or printable files,
at the very least mandatory content review for 3D files,
geofencing and export controls, and DMCA-like takedowns with no due process whatsoever.
You didn't print anything, you didn't intend harm, but that doesn't matter—you created instructions.
Open source hardware? Community mods? Right to repair? They all take an enormous hit!
And the winners? Of course, the big corporations who have big legal compliance teams.
Colt can still make firearms with serial numbers; you can't make a ray gun for your sci-fi character.
Independent artists would now face much higher legal risks for every dollar they try and earn,
with no clear lines as to what's allowed and no money to fight takedowns.
And Disney would be laughing all the way to the bank!
Governments would have even more power over us, the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments would be shredded,
big corporations would rake in profits, and smaller outfits would be put out of business.
And it still wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns.
So all of that makes Washington state this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
Well, that wraps up this "The automatic pilot, it's deflating!" edition of the Bogosity Podcast.
I hope you enjoyed it; if you did, please go to donate.bogosity.tv for several ways to support,
and discord.bogosity.tv to join the discussion.
Subscribe at the Discord, Patreon, or SubscribeStar and you can listen early and ad-free.
Thank you for listening. Until next time, here's a quote from Neil Harbisson:
"3D printing represents the democratization of manufacturing.
It allows anyone to create anything, anywhere, at any time."
The Bogosity Podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International license.