Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

Post by macspoofing » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:38 PM UTC

geewee wrote: post #146

roenxi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potent…

Why? In what world does using software to marginalize people or mislead the public create a better world?

Post by dolni » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:39 PM UTC

geewee wrote: post #146

roenxi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potent…

Why? In what world does using software to marginalize people or mislead the public create a better world?

Post by chasd00 » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:39 PM UTC

geewee wrote: post #146

roenxi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potent…

Why? In what world does using software to marginalize people or mislead the public create a better world?

Post by refurb » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:40 PM UTC

nkozyra wrote: post #143

refurb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagree. You have to remember democratic politics is about turning a massive ship in a new direction. Unless you’re willing to start shooting people democracy moves in increments. I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media [Trump’s antagonism exposed just how partisan it is across the board], 2) the US strategy with regards to China [Biden seems to be quietly…

> I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media, 2) the US strategy with regards to China, 3) a significant adjustment of tax strategy and offshoring of profits, 4) healthcare regulations. These are ephemeral changes, the type that flap back and forth frequently with presidential changes. That's why things like ACA are far more monumental - they're codified, much harder to…

Post by veltas » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #134

s7r wrote: post #121

In terms of "antithetical values", the machine learning project ml5js.org actually did something about this. They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of peopl…

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potent…