381–390 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it, as well as add an unwritten "these kinds of people are are not allowed to use our software" clause to their license.
If that happens you would have a point, until then you are preemptively playing victim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I dislike Trump, deplatforming is much more notable while he was in office than if it had happened afterwards. I agree, though, that it does sometimes sound like it's being hinted that something more nefarious was happening when people talk about it like this.
But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office. You could argue that they should have booted him sooner, after a few warnings and repeated violations. And they can argue that they gave him, and other political figures, extra leeway due to their public positions and their newsworthiness. But at the end of the day he was repeatedly given special treatment that most of us would never get on any…
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…
It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach.
You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.
Meanwhile, you're citing the GPL which is a highly political license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No he is not fading into the background. He is still currently trying to overthrow the US government. He is attempting to delegitimize elections over the entire country. He is an evil man that will stop at nothing to regain power.
Lots of hyperboles there
The man IS going around pushing election claims, and people down ticket ARE copying him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon violating open source agreements to host their own version of the product and squeeze the life out of the original company? Not a peep. People whose political opinions differ from my own use the software? This must be stopped at once .
I think calling open fascism something as simple as a "differing political opinion" a bit reductive. Additionally, a former president (and future presidential hopeful) taking advantage of someone in this manor is more newsworthy than a multinational corporation. Though, I agree with what I assume is also your opinion that that Amazon situation matters more.
No, definitely not. They’re just actual fascists.
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.
> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it Isn't it "how they sell it" instead of "how they use it"? Edit: Also, "how" doesn't necessarily mean "what for".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the (original) point is a time-limited monopoly on the use of a creation in order to compensate for creativity (for copyright) or public disclosure (for patent rights; note the use of the word “patent”, originally used for certificates affirming government-enforced monopolies of other kinds as well, e.g. for the exploitation of a colony). Though the French droits d’auteur line of thought works differently, or so…
> No, the (original) point is a time-limited monopoly on the use of a creation in order to compensate (...) No, not really. Author's rights and intellectual property are not a price tag on an open market. They establish that the author has exclusive rights over his own work, and thus anyone who is interested in accessing said work needs explicit authorization from the author and covering explicitly the intender use.…
... Generally called a monopoly, yes. (The original Copyright Act 1710 had a hard upper limit of 28 years on the duration, the modern near-eternal copyright is a recent thing; patents are around 20 years max even today, or using the LAME codec would still be illegal.)
While I don’t think I called it a price tag (if anything, it’s only the right to set one if desired), note that the practice of copyright assignment (required among others by most publishers, both of books and of periodicals) precisely amounts to selling this exclusivity at some sort of market-determined price. The Berne Convention’s inalienable “moral rights”, from what I understand, were intended exactly to limit the scope of this so that the author could at least receive acknowledgement even if they chose or were forced to give up any and all material benefits or other control over their creation.
... I’m not sure I entirely understand what you wanted to say, sorry, so this reply might be missing the point.
Mastodon has also banned Gab and others from the network that they disagree with. The whole point of a federated system is free speech... yet they have spent a lot of time trying to kick out people who disagree with them. Frankly, it’s disheartening I want to know what the communists, fascists, republicans, democrats, racists, religious, technocrats, etc want to say. It’s so frustrating having everyone in bubbles and…
I also found it deeply amusing that the "fediverse" proclaimed its diversity with "look at all the banned nodes!" I peeked at the Mastodon code and it gave me a headache before I got through the "required for installation" section. Makes me want to go set up an RBBS node again.
If you want a platform where people from all political sides come together (and fight via quote tweets and ratios), then Twitter is your best bet. But not everyone wants to have that experience, and I’ve seen people move to Mastodon to escape from that and have a more curated, closely-knit experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the person who was the sitting president of the united states, who got deplatformed in unison by big tech social media, and is now fighting against censorship by using tech? Yeah, that is not relevant at all to hackernews /s
I like how everyone always says "sitting President of the united states" when they mention Trump's deplatforming, as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account, or that deplatforming Trump was in some way an coup or overthrow of Trump's position as President, thus reinforcing the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy that poses…
That's not what they're implying.
The implication is that if they can do it to the office-holder of one of the most powerful jobs in the world, they are very powerful and can do it to you.
> the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy
When lots of social media companies do the same thing at the same time, what other explanation is there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [snark]Almost lost the Republic on Jan 6th to a whole lot of shoving.[/snark] Snark aside, the danger of Jan 6 was not shoving - It was people deciding to do the wrong thing in the name of gaining power. The insurrectionists who organized January 6 (yes it was planned) were at the Willard Hotel in a number of suites they called a "War Room" (yes, their words). The entire plan was to delay certification of Joe Biden…
> No elections will be trusted by either side after that happens. This is the Democrats fault. Their shoe-in candidate lost and they spent four years bleating that Trump was illegitimate and failed to prove it with a far reaching investigation. _That_ is where trust started to be lost.