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

Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 500 posts

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#441

Post by shadowgovt »

charcircuit wrote: post #434
shadowgovt wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the creator of this repo asking someone else to host the repo on their infrastructure? No one is forcing him to use GitHub.

That is GitHub's job to decide. I am not talking about what GitHub thinks of it, but with what third parties think of it.

GitHub has chosen to appeal to the centroid of its perceived potential userbase. That includes a certain amount of common-decency policing of content others choose to host on its service.

They'd rather lose a few Automatic1111's than have schoolteachers telling students "Don't go on GitHub, it's not safe" (or having school administrations ban its use).

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#442

Post by vageli »

saurik wrote: post #426
sillysaurusx wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll step in and say no, it’s not problematic to have one of the most productive and legendary hackers in AI to be in firm control of the future of the project that he himself created. It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to. But what else is the proposal here? Forcibly move the repo? It doesn’t really make sense. It’s funny seein…

> > Plus Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui has no formally published license, making its codebase a tangled web of legal nightmares. > It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to. That is actually not an option as there is no license on the first-party code in this repository (the only licenses I've seen being of a few third-party…

> Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#443

Post by Der_Einzige »

voldacar wrote: post #402
williamscales wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t 100% follow, I did a bit of googling and I don’t exactly grasp the problem. Could you point me in the right direction?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own

The only reason stirner didn't explicitly defend liberalism is that germany circa the 1840s was really, really garbage. This is why people think he was an "anarchist"

It's in my self interest to not see icky things.

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#444

Post by fpgaminer »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #436
BoorishBears wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to. But what else is the proposal here? Forcibly move the repo? It doesn’t really make sense. I like how you realize exactly what they're proposing, but proceed build a strawman that the comment didn't propose so you can forcefully tear it down. In general it doesn't seem likely that in the l…

Hmm. Is it strawmanning? I meant to explore the logical possibilities, but in hindsight that does sound cheap. Apologies. For what it’s worth, all of the recent AI art deplatforming has me a bit jumpy. It did seem like a possibility that people might call for certain repos to be taken down, but I meant to phrase it as more of a question. In fact, my comment reads as a cross-examination, which I’m disappointed by. I’l…

> For what it’s worth, all of the recent AI art deplatforming has me a bit jumpy.

Same. It's been a thrill for me as a programmer to finally have an augmentation that allows me to do art and express myself creatively. And equally scary that people are trying to take that away. That's perhaps why I'm so adamant on calling out the racist associations of Auto's repo. The last thing AI art needs is more bad press. But it's also why I was careful to point out that I wasn't criticizing Auto's work, as I'm not for removing code except under extreme circumstances. I use the project every day. I just want something better.

I also don't particularly have strong feelings about Automatic1111 as a person, since they're quite young from what I understand and I was also edgy when I was younger.

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#445

Post by peterdn »

pwdisswordfish9 wrote: post #435
saurik wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Plus Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui has no formally published license, making its codebase a tangled web of legal nightmares. > It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to. That is actually not an option as there is no license on the first-party code in this repository (the only licenses I've seen being of a few third-party…

Not true. It is an option by virtue of the fact that is a public repository. (If you fail to specify a license on a public repository, the terms that apply are not the default "all rights reserved [by the owner/creator]" that prohibits anyone else from using/displaying/performing or making their own copies. Instead, the terms that apply are the default terms that are specified in the GitHub TOS that you agree to--ter…

I don't think it's that simple. GitHub themselves say [1]:

> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.

Yes, it does note immediately below that "if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository". But that doesn't mean it's open source. You probably can't/shouldn't create derivative works with your forks. And you definitely wouldn't be allowed to just use this code in a commercial product, for example.

[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#446

Post by jacobbudin »

bastawhiz wrote: post #437
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #411

So..... I know this is going to kick off a flamewar (I apologize in advance, dang) but I have a serious question. It looks like the "controversy" was links to a site that included anime child porn (or what some people would call that, regardless of your personal interpretation). I've been to Japan and wandered around some manga stores, and.... what they have on some shelves is, like, really, viscerally, incredibly, d…

You don't even need to engage in that debate at all. Github doesn't allow porn on its platform. It doesn't matter what kind of porn (not the least of which porn that's illegal in the United States, which isn't Github's decision to censor or not). Github says "no porn," so no porn. Why does Github say "no porn?" Because their business model is to be a place where folks can do work, which necessitates it being a place…

> You don't even need to engage in that debate at all. Github doesn't allow porn on its platform.

The parent is referring to URLs, not the content itself. e.g., Popular network-filtering blocklists hosted on GitHub do include URLs to porn. That seems sensible.

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#447

Post by fpgaminer »

vageli wrote: post #442
saurik wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Plus Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui has no formally published license, making its codebase a tangled web of legal nightmares. > It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to. That is actually not an option as there is no license on the first-party code in this repository (the only licenses I've seen being of a few third-party…

> Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control). > If you set your pages and repositories…

I read that as saying that all public GitHub repos can be copied and republished on GitHub, but that doesn't include the right to _modify_ the code. The latter could only be granted by a license. Of which, there is none on Auto's work. And there's none known for any of the work of other contributors.

So while you can "fork" it, it's not forking it in the FOSS sense.

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#449

Post by gsk22 »

seanw444 wrote: post #427
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #411

So..... I know this is going to kick off a flamewar (I apologize in advance, dang) but I have a serious question. It looks like the "controversy" was links to a site that included anime child porn (or what some people would call that, regardless of your personal interpretation). I've been to Japan and wandered around some manga stores, and.... what they have on some shelves is, like, really, viscerally, incredibly, d…

Due to how taboo the topic is, I don't think there's any good statistical evidence to prove whether animated (whether AI or human-made) child porn disincentivizes those people from wanting to harm real children, or if it just feeds their desires far enough to want to take it to the real thing.

I doubt (but have no evidence to disprove) that simulated child porn causes viewers to act on those desires in the real world.

It's not as if people will be "converted" to child porn by viewing these images; rather, it will be viewed by people who already have a predisposition to such content. My gut says it might reduce real-world incidence if they can get their rocks off to digital content, rather than feeling compelled to do so in reality.

But as you pointed out, there is very little credible research on this topic, so it's hard to say conclusively.

Re: Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]

#450

Post by Der_Einzige »

danuker wrote: post #432
shadowgovt wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably a co-function of the paradox of tolerance that says something of the form "to regulate something it must be described," which (not unlike the paradox) doesn't imply you don't regulate it. Blocking the links is a good call for minimizing the odds of stumbling into them. Choosing to scroll through such content once it has been flagged is an individual choice and may carry individual consequences.

> and may carry individual consequences. Ah! Love the chilling effects you give off, dear shadowgovt! In seriousness, more instances of opaque censorship/cancellation will lead to more attrition of centralized platforms already collapsing under their own weight.

Relevant meme re "individual consequences" for reading/looking at the wrong things: https://postimg.cc/62TPMBfN
Post reply on HN