When you organize a nonprofit, you dedicate it to the public benefit. it’s not supposed to ever have owners, everything it does it supposed to be for me and you. as far as I’m concerned, this is a multi billion dollar larceny against the general public and we really need better laws that preserve our nonprofit institutions. Just even trying to plan this out is a crime against humanity
I’m just here to spread contempt for companies that rely on manipulative business tactics to function and encourage people not to buy one for that reason alone.
why do you think the Mozilla corporation losing 86% of their revenue wouldn’t hurt the Firefox browser?
Honestly the whole point of capitalism is that the owners of the business get to decide what their moral responsibility is and if you don’t like that then maybe we should try something else
I personally have not found Kagi’s default search results to be all that impressive, contrary to what most users seem to feel. I don’t know. When ddg and Google fail me, I will try Kagi and I think maybe only once or twice has it actually made finding what I’m looking for any easier.
I will mention though, you can do a lot of personalization on the results unlike other engines. So maybe if I took the time to customize, I might feel differently.
Do you ever think about how if every sports team was structured like the Green Bay Packers, there would be no conflict of interest with the city funding the development or renovation of a stadium for the team? What’s even more fun is that the NFL expressly prohibits any team from joining the league which is not privately owned. Literally the only exception is the Green Bay Packers and they only got that exception because they’re so old.
I think that if any company wants to write off any intellectual property that they have the copyrights to, it should have to become public domain
It turns out that, just like fancy graphics, not constantly trying to empty your customers pockets actually represents some kind of economic value. The ironic thing is so many of these old games were literally designed to steal your quarters.
Yet another consequence of humanity’s insatiable desire for animal products.
Personally, when I read their blog post, I didn’t feel like I was being lied to. I felt like I was reading the words of a person who has not spent very much time speaking English. I do agree, however, that the language they happened to use is not entirely representative of what they’re doing, but I don’t think it was malicious.
I’m curious to hear the philosophical reasons that lead you to feel so strongly about this.
The license looks to be Creative Commons non-commercial, which means it isn’t open source, only source-available.
To be clear: the license chosen prohibits anyone who forks floorp and includes these extra bits from trying to make money from it, but the developer still intends on publishing the source code so it can still be scrutinized.
The fact alone that they were storing your name in the first place means that was always possible. Frankly, this isn’t anything to be concerned about anymore than being concerned about trusting literally any private business that doesn’t publicly document their data retention practices and also subject themselves to routine audits. You should be concerned about that though by the way. But my advice is to not wait around for it to become obvious.
I have to say, I think the article actually does address what you’re saying, in particular here:
There are a couple of reasons as to why this is so surprising. Firstly, the Trust & Safety aspect: a few months ago, several Lemmy servers were absolutely hammered with CSAM, to the point that communities shut down and several servers were forced to defederate from one another or shut down themselves.
Simply put, the existing moderation tooling is not adequate for removing illegal content from servers. It’s bad enough to have to jump through hoops dealing with local content, but when it comes to federated data, it’s a whole other ball game.
The second, equally important aspect is one of user consent. If a user accidentally uploads a sensitive image, or wants to wipe their account off of a server, the instance should make an effort to comply with their wishes. Federated deletions fail sometimes, but an earnest attempt to remove content from a local server should be trivial, and attempting to perform a remote delete is better than nothing.
I also just want to point out that the knife cuts both ways. Yes, it’s impossible to guarantee nodes you’re federating with aren’t just ignoring remote delete requests. But, there is a benefit to acting in good faith that I think is easy to infer from the CSAM material example the article presents.
If any publisher (in this case, a lemmy instance) does not require the author to consciously consent to assigning the copyright of the comments to the publisher or some other entity, then by default the copyright of the comment is retained by the author who is allowed to write literally whatever licenses they like and as many licenses as they like for however many people they want.
https://gizmodo.com/who-actually-owns-your-content-when-you-post-it-to-the-1819953868
In the early days […] we often received a question along the lines of “I love the product and what Proton stands for, but how do I know you will still be around to protect my data 10 years from now?” […] Ten years and 100 million accounts later, we would like to think we have proven the point with our track record, but actually the question is just as relevant today as it was 10 years ago[.] […] Proton was not created to get rich[, …] but rather to address the […] problem of surveillance capitalism. […] Proton has always been about the mission and putting people ahead of profits […] and there is no price at which we would compromise our integrity. Frankly speaking, […] if the goal was to sell for a bunch of money, we could have done that long ago. […] Most businesses are built to be sold — we built Proton to serve the mission.
My problem is there’s literally ways you can organize a business that makes literally impossible to legally do these things. When businesses say these things, but don’t acknowledge the reality that they could always recharter the business in such a manner where you don’t just have to trust them to behave with no recourse if they don’t, I always have to add “but we still will continue to reserve the right to sell you out but pinky promise we won’t ever do it”
Not super familiar with EU law, but it was my understanding that a company that wants to be allowed to operate in the EU can’t just start violating an EU citizen’s EU granted rights just because aren’t literally geographically inside the EU at the time of the rights violation.
In other words, it’s my understanding that Apple would be liable for damages if, for instance, an EU citizen on vacation suddenly lost access to alternative app stores and such.
Yet again, we lack the only detail anyone actually cares about: how does Apple plan on actually limiting this functionality to the EU?
It’s difficult for me to imagine how they can comply with this but only for EU customers in a manner which can’t be easily circumvented. It kind of bothers me that journalists just parrot “these changes will not be coming to jurisdictions outside of the EU” uncritically, seemingly just completely taking for granted the idea that there’s not going to be any way to benefit from this if you don’t live in the EU.
Just to clarify to anybody who who might be confused. It’s going to be on PlayStation store not on the PlayStation console which came out almost 30 years ago