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

541–550 of 551 posts

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

#541

Post by projektfu »

_jal wrote: post #140
projektfu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends perhaps on whether it ends up in anti-SLAPP or something like that. But if, for example, you don't sue a hospital for showing your film to a group of children, but you do sue a school, the fact you didn't sue the hospital probably doesn't matter too much, even though your bias is against caretakers of healthy children as opposed to sick children. Not a legal opinion, of course.

SLAPP is a mechanism to short-circuit certain attacks on freedom of speech, it has nothing to do with intellectual property.

RICO is a mechanism to fight organized crime, and yet... Laws have unintended consequences.

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

#542

Post by margalabargala »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #473
margalabargala wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just their license violations.

Violation. And at the moment, nothing seems to be happening? Are they due to a punishment, or, according to the claims, they would just not be allowed to use the software anymore? Since they are not using it at the moment, there is nothing to see?

True, violation.

As I understand it, there's a few different possible paths here:

Currently, they are not due a punishment- they need either to publish the source code (whole thing goes away), or if they do not, then their license to use Mastodon is permanently revoked. If the use the code after that, then they might be subject to damages.

That said, it's likely that they would be able to successfully argue in court that the 30-day timer that has ostensibly started, is invalid. This would be because of the (IMO quite reasonable) point that the site was not intended for public access, and access that occurred was due to misconfiguration.

Frankly, it's annoying to me that this happened as it did, because the early access created this grey area of "does this count as a violation or is it just accidental", allowing people's personal politics to color how strictly this should be enforced. If the site had launched for real with the violation (or with the source code), everything would be much more clear-cut.

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

#543

Post by smaryjerry »

papito wrote: post #514
smaryjerry wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every generation thinks their problems are the worst. It’s just more of the same political fighting where one side demonizes the other to try to get people on their side. The world moves on until the next time they need to demonize someone and nothing of importance really happened. There is no collapse, just on to the next candidate.

The first time in American history there was no peaceful transfer of power, the loser claimed the election stolen, and refused to concede. So, no, it's not "just another candidate". This false both-side-ism is intellectually dishonest.

It’s not both side ism. They literally lied for years and spent millions of tax payer dollars trying to take out the president, and yet nothing more than words were said by the other side. Send pretty insignificant to me. If anything the opposite party you are claiming abused the legal system while the other simply expressed an opinion with no abuse of power whatsoever.

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

#544

Post by roenxi »

mdp2021 wrote: post #424
roenxi wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> illiberal political beliefs What do you mean? Which definition of 'liberal' are you using? That licence is one shard about opinion (debatable instancing of «marginalized») and fundamentally about use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

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

#545

Post by mdp2021 »

roenxi wrote: post #544
mdp2021 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> illiberal political beliefs What do you mean? Which definition of 'liberal' are you using? That licence is one shard about opinion (debatable instancing of «marginalized») and fundamentally about use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

> wikipedia

Funny you mention that page, because before posting the question «Which definition of 'liberal' are you using» I went to that very page to try to try and find an interpretation that fit the context. But nothing answered it clearly. So, that remains insufficient.

If the use of 'liberal' was meant to refer to the defence of freedom of speech, there exist a problem in the discrimination between "speech" as intended in the formula and «manipulat[ion]» as written in that licence. But was that the idea? We should not be here to guess.

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

#546

Post by krageon »

Sebb767 wrote: post #425
krageon wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.

Do you think that having a camera in your backyard constitutes surveillance? Does a baby monitor constitute surveillance? Does a drone with a camera constitute surveillance? It can be used for this, after all. No matter what you think, the authors might disagree, so you have no way of using the software in anything related to it. Worse yet, this can quickly change - the system you built that uses this software in the…

All rules can be interpreted maliciously, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any.

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

#547

Post by nkozyra »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #516
nkozyra wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

States are actively implementing nullification of federal laws. Some blue states are illegal immigrant sanctuary states. Some red states are federal gun law sanctuaries. Marijuana sanctuaries abound. People in positions of power are openly discussing more nullification and even national divorce. You don't repeal laws, you nullify them. The ACA is small potatoes in that regard. They're not coming for the ACA, they're…

What you're discussing is nothing new. State marijuana decriminalization has existed for decades, states have selectively chosen to enforce immigration laws differently for even longer.

What state gun laws are intended to supersede or nullify federal ones?

None of this is new or shocking. It's largely the way the republic has operated from day one.

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

#548

Post by nkozyra »

rvz wrote: post #85
Consultant32452 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The following is my opinion of what happened, not an endorsement. Trump's role in our history was primarily a f-you to the established players in both parties. He won because he made all the right people mad. And the more his enemies drastically over-react the more powerful he becomes.

As painfully admitted by the comments here, it is virtually impossible for them to stop talking about Donald J. Trump and they have to even resort to censoring themselves as if he never existed. So it just means that Donald J. Trump is in their minds 'rent-free'; forever.

It's true, people do talk about presidents after their terms.

If classifying that as "rent-free" makes people feel better more power to them.

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

#549

Post by GuB-42 »

lorabe wrote: post #512
unanswered wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your comment makes no sense, and Donald wouldn't use anything to save puppies to begin with.

Why not?

Hitler literally saved puppies. He was a forerunner of animal rights. I don't know about the relationship between Trump and puppies but real people are more nuanced than a D&D alignment chart, and even despicable people can do good.

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

#550

Post by roenxi »

mdp2021 wrote: post #545
roenxi wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

> wikipedia Funny you mention that page, because before posting the question «Which definition of 'liberal' are you using» I went to that very page to try to try and find an interpretation that fit the context. But nothing answered it clearly. So, that remains insufficient. If the use of 'liberal' was meant to refer to the defence of freedom of speech, there exist a problem in the discrimination between "speech" as i…

There wasn't a specific liberal principle I was thinking of. If you want more of an itemised list, I've gone through the "generally supported" list at the start of the wiki article and listed the basic issues I was inferring from s7r's original post were:

* Anti-democratic (in that they privilege the copyright holders political views)

* Anti-secular/anti-religious-freedom (in that they privilege the copyright holders values and would likely exclude people based on religious values in conflict with the CoC).

* Anti-free-speech (in that they would deny access to their work based on what people say).

* Anti-market economy (in that they aren't providing a tool/service to anyone equally based on a free market).

Which isn't to say they're bad people or anything, liberalism isn't the be-all and end-all. But the GPL is a neat embodiment of some very good ideas from the liberal tradition and this ml5js library license is much less liberal than the GPL. And also worse.

Post reply on HN