It doesn’t sound like you have a good grasp on the differences between this case and Ross Ulbricht.

I wasn’t aware Silk Road was taken down via FISA. I’ve read all of the long form accounts of it that I’m aware of and I don’t remember FISA being mentioned at all. Can you share a source?

The Supreme Court has already ruled the police have no duty to protect. I highly doubt there will be a ruling in favor of the kids. If there is one, there’s absolutely no fucking way it stands on appeal in the Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court.

I can’t find this being a problem. What circles do you move in where “jerk” is a problematic word?

This seems like the natural extension of Telemarketers

All of these packaging systems have plenty of tutorials. Speaking from experience, many maintainers were not developers when they started maintaining packages for distros other than the official distros. I have worked with several maintainers who do work in tech and know socially several who had no background. This could be a great place for you to start!

You bother because FOSS is as much paying it forward as it is getting shit for free.

I mean it’s FOSS. Have you considered opening a PR to contribute what’s missing? You can be the change you want to see. I wouldn’t normally comment something like this. Your emphasis on “still” raised my hackles a little bit and led me to ask why you still haven’t made your own.

You very clearly did not process either one of my comments. Have fun with that!

I think that’s a fantastic description of the Israeli colonizers!

Edit: very important to note that not all Jews are Israeli, not all Israelis are Jews or colonizers, and not all Palestinians are Muslim or Hamas.

Edit edit: it’s kinda fucking stupid that I have to pull a “not all…” because that’s really fucking dumb with any discourse. It shows just how loaded this conversation is and how difficult it is to call out the problem, Zionist colonizers, without being misinterpreted eg assumed antisemitism

throwing paint and writing slogans on the homes of Jews is antisemitism

This is a very, very dangerous idea to perpetuate. Saying any act of protest against Jewish people, whether or not it’s related to their religion or heritage, is antisemitic means we cannot criticize Jewish people for valid reasons unrelated to their religion or heritage. Misguided or not, it does not seem that these protestors were attacking them because they are Jewish but rather because they are Zionist and just happen to be Jewish. A natural extension of this idea is that protesting the rampant fraud from previous Netanyahu terms would make me antisemitic which is patently false.

To quote you, I’m not sure we read the same article if you think the homes were vandalized because the occupants are Jewish.

This whole conversation is super fraught with nuance.

For more color, check out Raw Dog by Jamie Loftus and her guest Behind the Bastards episode about Major League Eating.

That’s just Mitnick’s over-inflated ego and constant media presence. The punishment he received was not commensurate to his crimes, giving him reasonable support. Everything else is just his hype game.

You should submit a feature request for that. It is possible to send from the aliases on other platforms; might just be something their devs need some critical mass to work on.

It’s P2W. There’s absolutely no way their grind example is actually achievable by a casual player.

I feel like there’s a growing understanding that the economy has nothing to do with the majority of our lives. For example, recession indicators, at least in the US, don’t include cost of living and inflation. Low employment doesn’t mean shit to me if the price of groceries grows faster than my salary. Large numbers of open jobs doesn’t mean shit to me if employers can justify lower wages because the market is flooded from layoffs. A high salary across the board doesn’t mean shit to me if I can’t afford a house on the wage, forcing me to dump increasingly larger portions of my pay on renting an asset I can never own.

I did some cursory searches to find the actual arguments and came up blank. It’s important to note this isn’t the standard “video games cause violence” lawsuit that has absolutely no merit. This is different. The summary presented in articles is that this gun manufacturer explicitly marketed their product for things like this using a sophisticated campaign. If I understand the summary correctly, it therefore hinges on both the marketing of this specific gun and its presence across the digital landscape. The parents aren’t going after shooting in games; they’re going after a company that actively markets its products on social media and in video games.

It’s novel. I’m kinda skeptical because the solution would have to limit product placement and advertisement which has a massive lobby. There’s also nothing that really says “this specific gun leads to violence” without implicitly relying on the whole “video games cause violence” which is bullshit.

That’s fair. I don’t disagree with licensing comments necessarily. I think users doing it to provide the basis for a legal argument is fine. I think my pushback comes from my lack of trust in any of these users actually acting on their license which could be construed as victim-shaming. I’m hung up on the follow-through which careful analysis like yours really highlights.

Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling. If CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 decides to add “anti-commercial-AI” then and only then is it not mislabeling. That’s like me calling the US copyrights of the books sitting next to me “anti-bitfucker” licenses. They have nothing to do with you at this point in time so it is misleading for me to claim otherwise.

While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter. As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.

I feel like a better analogy is someone who signs their text messages which is a more recent problem than people with obnoxiously long forum signatures.

They’re mislabeling the license too. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 has nothing to do with “anti-commercial-AI.” It provides some terms for using content and, in theory if OP is willing to take someone to court, should provide some basis if the license is being abused. Until there’s actual precedence, though, it’s debatable whether or not sucking up CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content is a breach of the license. For it to actually matter, someone needs to demonstrably prove 1) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 content was sucked up by AI, 2) it was their content and it was licensed at the time, 3) the terms of the license were violated, and 4) other legal shit that will pop up during the course of the litigation. “Someone” has to be someone with deep fucking pockets willing to go the distance in many international jurisdictions.