I assume most licenses out there are irrevocable? They’re certainly a feature of copyleft licenses.

If someone posts copyrighted material they were not allowed to share then 3rd party servers still need to deal with DMCA takedown requests and false reports, regardless of TOS. An explicit license might help but by how much? It may also push some users away.

There’s so many reasons trying to force companies to implement age verification is a bad idea, and “to protect the children” is a nonsense excuse. That said, it’s kinda scary if a government can’t regulate business behaviour when interacting with their citizens (who are inside the country).

You mean a morally “right” solution? 😇

2. Open source has high immunity to devs making changes at the expense of user for their benefit because anti-features can be removed. Recommending another proprietary alternative here would be like saying they aught to leave an abusive partner but then recommend someone with the same red flags they had.

If you went somewhere else their competition is winning (directly as another video site and indirectly as anything else you would do with your time).

I didn’t mean to suggest that. I consider calling copyright infringement “piracy” to be propaganda started by the music industry to push their monetary interests. A derogatory term that conflates it with immoral stealing (and murder). This overstates any harms caused.

Culture is just that which a group says/does. If you value the well-being of humans then you can evaluate if an action is good or not. “Respect” of culture need not come into the solution of how best it is to act.

Remember when stealing on sea was piracy? Always has been.

Copyright infringement is different.

Wikipedia content is usually copyleft isn’t it? BigAI doing the BigEvil, redistribution without attribution or reaffirming the rights given back from Copyright by copyleft.

A “clash of cultures” would not be inaccurate as “culture” includes everything a group says/does. It’s an insufficient term as it often conveys mundane differences but “stigma, discrimination, and violence” is a substantially more moral difference (if Wikipedia is accurate about gender identity and expression in Kenya).

🐧

If we had a universal basic income (UBI) thwn working would instead be a choice to improve their standard of living, rather than just to live.

I could agree about liberating work except I assume the AI is trained on artists’ works without compensation and permission. Artists created works already and it’s taken advantage of to create the AI, presumably for the profit of the proprietary software owner.

Perhaps balaclavas will become common place in response, at least in public places.

A billion dollars is a worthless amount of money, apparently. Do investors have no loved ones?

🤢

I can +1 your whole post if I exclude the start. If we talk about it we may discover we mean the same, or similar, when we say “consciousness”. What other purpose is there for word definitions?

What are the chances this won’t be proprietary?

Some claim they value their users having the “most” freedom. However, since MIT permits code use within proprietary software then that would exclude downstream users (users of their users, ad infinitum).

There’s a GPL compliance lawsuit going on where they’re suing as a user under contract law, instead of as the copyright holder. Perhaps you can say the GPL is as good as anyone’s lawyers, in the near future.

They become shit when doing so makes them more money - eventually temptation wins. There is less temptation when a platform is open source (libre) because someone else can come along and host practically the same platform but minus the anti-features.