Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

blog.joinmastodon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 551 posts

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#371

Post by unanswered »

roenxi wrote: post #305
jlangenauer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.

Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society. Trying to carve out little patches for your type of people and excluding that scary, evil other does not work. We're at Enlightenment+200 years here. I suppose shouldn't have to try make a defence of tolerating different opinions. If they want to license their software however then good luck…

Haven't you heard? The enlightenment is racist! We've moved beyond such outmoded ways of thinking.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#372

Post by lvass »

Robin_Message wrote: post #314
brailsafe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discriminating against marginalized communities Only marginalised communities?

The licence surely implies any discrimination being forbidden. Proof by contradiction: if someone uses this software to discriminate against an apparently non-marginalised community, then that community would be being marginalised in at least one way (by this usage), thus making that community a marginalised community, thus making that usage against the licence.

Therefore no one is allowed to use it, ever. This thing runs in the web browser so it clearly marginalizes people who don't have internet access, as well as people who disable JS for security reasons, among others.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#373

Post by superdisk »

danShumway wrote: post #327
superdisk wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer the classic term, PROPRIETARY software. At least be honest about what this is.

Ethical Source licenses are proprietary, but just like in the case of Source Available licenses it can often be useful to create subcategories. No one gets up in arms when we in the Open Source movement distinguish between Copyleft and permissive licenses. I don't see why we should get up in arms when other people introduce the same kinds of granularity in their license terms. There's a meaningful difference between…

I suppose my objection is that calling it "ethical source" implies that the practice is ethical, which I disagree with.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#374

Post by ekianjo »

jlangenauer wrote: post #152
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? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.

> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it.

Yeah, and that's not called free software, Free Software is about empowering end users, not the creator.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#375

Post by colejohnson66 »

rbanffy wrote: post #328
colejohnson66 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have no right to a computer service, you have no right to the AGPL code it runs. For example, a company is allowed to make internal GPL-based tools and not have to release their code. If I hack into their service and download the binary, I’m not entitled to the source code. If the closed beta was meant for a select few, but was found by someone else, that someone else doesn’t have a right to the code just beca…

> If the closed beta was meant for a select few, but was found by someone else The license makes no such distinction. The website had no warning that it was a private test, was hosted on the presumed official domain and looked like it went live. I never received an explicit authorisation by YC to use Hacker News and here I am. I wouldn’t call my access unauthorised even though it was never authorised.

> The license makes no such distinction. The website had no warning that it was a private test, was hosted on the presumed official domain and looked like it went live.

That is true. I mention that in my last paragraph:

> The fact that it’s a public web server (with no access controls) does throw a wrench into things, but it’s not as simple as many here make it seem.

However, simply being accessible is not akin to authorization. If that company tool is accessible to the public through a misconfigured DNS, the courts probably won’t side with me asking for the source.

The law is not black and white (despite what many here think). Judges are humans and will apply judgement as to whether Truth was meant to be accessible or not.

There’s also the fact that the CFAA is a broadly worded law and could easily be wielded by Trump against the people accessing Truth prior to launch. Just say they weren’t authorized and were hacking. They’ll probably lose in court with that argument, but we won’t know until the ruling would come out

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#376

Post by unanswered »

Robin_Message wrote: post #302
fvdessen wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone is free to use the software. [...] The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. There's no problem with that, but they should be clear about it. They should also state clearly that ml5.js is not free or open source software, as its license violates the first principle of Free Software: > The freedom to run…

> The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. Any can use the software only for purposes in line with ml5.js values . So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose. It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar, they…

That's bullshit and you must know it. If, say, Donald Trump were to use the software to save puppies, the steering committee would find a reason that this is actually worse than Hitler.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#377

Post by parrellel »

HKH2 wrote: post #160
thinkcontext wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not fading. He's firmly in control of the party and is purging those that won't repeat his election lies.

What a surprise that those people happen to be neocons. Somehow we're supposed to believe George W. Bush is a good guy after all.

George Bush still should be dragged to the Hague, this "The Election Was Stolen" idiocy is still dangerous. Both can be true.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#378

Post by im3w1l »

Chris2048 wrote: post #356
rubyist5eva wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't legally have access to the platform, you have no claim on license enforcement. The platform wasn't officially launched, and the accounts were used by exploiting a misconfigured page. They are under no obligation to release the source code, yet.

> the accounts were used by exploiting a misconfigured page This is an important detail; is this absolutely proven?

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/hacker-trump-truth-social/

> Armed with the app developer’s name, the hacker told the Daily Dot that they were able to utilize Shodan, a search engine that locates servers exposed to the open internet, to track down the company’s digital footprint.

> The hacker was able to locate numerous web domains as a result, including one that appeared to be running the mobile beta for Truth Social.

> News of the public website quickly spread across social media after making its way to Canadian hacker Aubrey “Kirtaner” Cottle, who was able to set up faux accounts for numerous high-profile individuals such as QAnon guru Ron Watkins.

Whether that counts as misconfigured idk, but these are certainly not normal users doing normal user things.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#379

Post by rsynnott »

hartator wrote: post #103
anoonmoose wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be fair not to attribute it to malice once they start following the terms of the license...until then, all we know is what we can see

The site is not officially up though.

I mean, it's _theoretically_ possible that they modified it to remove the link to the source, accidentally put it live, always intending to revert the modification before deliberately going live... but that's not winning any prizes for plausibility.

In any case 'officially up' is likely irrelevant here.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#380

Post by margalabargala »

nuerow wrote: post #324
eterevsky wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can, which doesn't mean they should. Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.

> They can, which doesn't mean they should. Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property? > Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed. This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in an…

> Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?

If the author of some software has a general good-faith position that others should use their software, then the conditions they associate with that software fall on a continuum from "reasonable to "unreasonable".

The MIT license is at the reasonable end. Saying "give me ten million dollars for this ROT13 algorithm" is at the unreasonable end.

When the person you replied to said:

> They can, which doesn't mean they should.

I think they were saying they personally considered the terms of the license at the "unreasonable" end. I don't disagree- saying "you can use this for now, but have to stop immediately if I or anyone I might sell this to say so" seems at least borderline unreasonable.

It certainly isn't "free software", though being wrapped in what is otherwise the Blue Oak license they're kind of hiding their non-free-ness. I think this is where I mostly take issue- it feels like the project is attempting to portray itself as a free software project, when it is not.

Post reply on HN