Itch doesn't appear interested in suing unfortunately. I want them to, not because I'm bloodthirsty, but to set precedent that this wreckless use of AI content moderation isn't OK. I can imagine Disney and Nintendo following this.
They really should because the law has already decided that AI isn't an independent entity, and is essentially just a computer program.
So whoever initiated the AI is ultimately responsible for its behavior, they can't claim the AI malfunctioned because they chose not to bother having any human oversight, they knew that this was always a possibility and still they took responsibility for it.
My worry is that without a lawsuit or other action, we'll keep seeing LLM slop companies taking down smaller websites for bogus reasons. This needs to be codified somehow that there were damages done to Itch's earnings (and more importantly the earnings of the independent creators on the platform who should start a class-action suit), and that what Funko's contracted LLM company did was wrong.
There's financial damages, loss of profit, emotional distress, reputation loss, and more. We need to take action against these companies for their wrongdoing. So either they need to willingly pay up and have that payment be known and public, or they need to be made to pay by the courts.
Itch is by no means a small time player. Doing some very fast statistics off of the game price breakdowns available and the counts of games available vs. the number they rate as best sellers, if 20% of their best sellers make a sale each day and 7.5% of their non-best sellers make a sale each day, assuming an average price for the three pricing filters of (under $5, $2.5), ($5 to $15, $10), (over $15, $20), then Itch sells approximately $20k/day. Half a day is $10k. If those averages are actually much higher in their respective areas, as in just below the maximum then the daily total jumps to over $35k/day. There is wiggle room in my assumptions, but it is safe to say that Itch sees about $25k±7k/day.
As mentioned in other suits, there are nonmonetary damages as well which are harder to quantify without access to their analytics such as reputation damage, lost traffic, maintenance and repair from the forced outage at the domain level, etc. I could see a suit for $50k in actual damages and another $500k-$1M in punitive damages to send the message that this behavior is intolerable in general.
Either Funko is lying or their "brand protection partner" is lying. Also, what the fuck does Funko have to protect? The only thing they actually created was those beady little eyes they put on everyone else's IP.
It would be a real shame if [email protected] (the domain registrar of brandshield.com) were to get a bunch of reports about scams and illegal activity found on the website. Bonus points for copying [email protected].
This registrar is such hot garbage that it stinks of just one individual or group controlling the whole thing from the registrar level to the few domains they provide. Their contact form page won't even load for me.
continues to poke around
Oh what do you know, the registrar and "BrandShield" are run by the same guy
Who, again, all founded "Brandshield" at the same time they bought the rights from ICANN to make their own registrar, which appears to purely operate as a byproduct of "Brandshield"
Funko: Hey, chatgpt... Write an apology letter to the gaming community about getting itch.io shut down. Something like "Sorry, we fucked up. Please don't hate us and continue to buy our stuff!" but make it sound like it came from an intern in HR.
Look, we know we sell little plastic figures—not games, not platforms, not anything remotely digital—but somehow, we’ve managed to trip over our own shoelaces and knock something precious to all of you right off the shelf. Yes, we’re talking about itch.io, and yes, we understand the gravity of what happened.
We’re not going to sugarcoat it: we messed up. We’re not entirely sure how the dominoes fell this way, but somehow, through a series of unfortunate events (and probably some poorly-thought-out legal maneuvers), our actions have impacted an entire community that thrives on creativity and passion. That was never our intention, and it’s not who we want to be.
The truth is, we’re sitting here staring at our little figures, wondering how something so small can lead to such a big screw-up. We know this affects you, and we’re genuinely sorry for the frustration, confusion, and anger we’ve caused.
We don’t expect forgiveness overnight, but please know we’re working hard to make this right. We’re talking to the people who actually know what they’re doing (because, let’s face it, we clearly don’t), and we’re committed to doing better moving forward.
We value this community more than you realize, even if we’ve done a poor job of showing it. Thank you for your patience, and we hope you’ll give us the chance to earn back your trust—not just with our figures, but with our actions.
Makes me wonder if the report was for something like itch.io/blah but it took the whole site down. If they're not being dishonest, I could see going to registrar about a site imitating to be yours for phishing.
Funko still deserves some flak for, at least, using an automated tool (or a setting) that is so insanely aggressive. Maybe the registrar holds some blame too.
Frankly everyone involved in this situation looks bad except the victim who did nothing wrong.
Funko deserves blame for using a dodgy solution that they have no real understanding of.
The brand protection partner, whatever the hell they're called, deserves blame for being scumbags who go for the nuclear option as a first result. Knowing full well how destructive and completely disproportionate of a response that is.
The registrar deserves blame for being utterly stupid and responding to a report without doing even the most minor of investigations first. Like I don't know, looking at the website.
No one at any point attempted to reach out to the owner of the site, they called his mother for some reason, not the actual site administrator, so they didn't make any legitimate attempt at contact.
I honestly have no idea what the end game here was supposed to be, because there's no way in hell that this was ever going to end other than everyone looking like complete idiots. I honestly think that just everyone involved here is just utterly incompetent.
I have never heard of this particular registrar but they're going on my long list of registrars not to trust, alongside GoDaddy.
At united health care we really respect all the money we extract from all your dying folks and recently we noticed that one of you died one of us. So we started a manhunt for anyone of you and now we got a rando who sort of looks the part. Thank you for the inconvenience. We will be ghosts now since you won't find any of our names online starting now...wait not, starting now!
Some people are looking past the partner or putting "partner" in quotes.
Funko doesn't handle these takedown requests, they hired BrandShield for this. BrandShield definitely went overboard and their reputation is at risk.
I've shopped around for brand protection in the past when scammers registered a domain name with my company's name in it, and used it to do fake job offers. We got the domain suspended by contacting the registrar, but we didn't know about it until it was reported to us.
They did it at their general direction, but almost certainly not at their explicit instructions.
These takedown factories use 'how much shit we got taken down' as a metric, regardless of what it actually was, and LOVE spamming out thousands and thousands of reports at providers until providers do what they want and take shit down.
My personal favorite one was a bunch of morons who didn't understand how IPFS gateways worked, and would send literal, actual, we-counted thousands of reports over pirated ebooks that were "hosted" on the gateway.
Except, of course, this isn't how any of this works and while we did push back and argue over months and months about this, not every provider is willing to invest the time it takes to fight these shits.
Also, if you want super giggles, you should look up the standard text that Web Sheriff sends, which claims all sorts of human right volations and human slavery offenses when someone infringes a trademark for their customers. Absolutely unhinged, and there's dozens and dozens of these companies filling up your average provider's inbox every day knowing full well that just being annoying ENOUGH will get them a +1 in the takedown metrics.
It's really got nothing to do with what Funko might actually really be after, and everything about how they can bill Funko more while just using automated scrapers, automated webforms, and people in the Philipines or similar making pennies to just reply to providers with pretty much the same script until the hosting provider gives up fighting and does what they want just so they'll go away.
I could go with this if they actually apologized and fired BrandShield. They did neither of those things, so have demonstrated their full endorsement of BrandShield’s fraudulent behavior.
They were hired specifically to go overboard and risk reputation. To shield brand from reputational damage of scorching internet. It's even in their name.
If you hire a hitman you're still on the hook for murder. Making someone else do your dirty work does not absolve you. Especially when you're a corporation and literally everything you do is through people you pay.
Brand protection is something that a lot of companies care about and many use third parties to handle it.
A much better analogy is if you were to hire security guards to protect your person and property and an overzealous guard kills someone. That happens often enough, we know the guard is on the hook, but the boss is rarely charged unless he was micro-managing it.
I support reigning in corrupt oligarchs (full asset seizure, 20 years mandatory community service as a live-in junior janitor in a hospice care facility) as much as the next person, but this is stupid.
It’s good in theory but still doesn’t work. For political lies, someone from both parties has to approve the note and the conservative often vetoes it.