Support. No one wants to hear about the negative stuff about their platform of choice, but it’s important to talk about it so it can improve.

You can certainly see other comments that seem to agree with that stance

The one guy you’re trying to pass the buck to, money_loo, is from a lemmy instance that only has Chicago sports communities and whose front page is mostly federated meme posts. You’re a BeeHaw user. You’ve presumably read and agreed to the Beehaw community documents.

I expect more than anti-intellectualism from you.

So many questions!

Are you suggesting that the political aspects of technology shouldn’t be discussed in a technology community?

Are you implying that technology is apolitical? That there are technology subjects to discuss that don’t have a political component?

Do discussions of the applications of technology not belong in a technology community?

There’s the real strategic concern that escalating too quickly will have nuclear repercussions. But the deeper reasons are visible if you view most governments as military industrial corporations stacked under a trenchcoat. The true motivator is that the longer the war continues, the more money will flow from their respective tax payers into their pockets. They don’t care about Ukrainian lives, they don’t care about Russian lives. The popular support for the war and lack of domestic casualties means they get to ply their trade of death, and they come out smelling like roses. Opposing Russian colonialism is a noble cause, but the nobility belongs to those who are dying in the foxholes, not the warmongers who are squeezing this crisis to get more capital.

Western leaders don’t want Ukraine to win. They want Russia to lose. A quick cauterized wound is less damaging than a slow bleed out. Total bankruptcy of the Russian war machine is the objective, the economic elimination of their primary trade competitor.

Any rule adds a burden to the mod team. It can be made easier with auto-mod software, but we should make it clear we’re asking for more labor from volunteers.

That being said, I’d love a rule to prevent directly linking to youtube, and using invidious or piped instead. I’ll mod if it helps to enforce the rule.

I don’t think he’s trying to amend for past misdeeds – I think he’s just trying to live his life. If we lived in a restorative justice society instead of a punitive one, I’d have different expectations of him. We are a society ruled by war criminals who have never seen a day of prison. Things are hard enough for people who’ve survived incarceration, it’s a shitty thing to throw his past at him. Especially since the people who tend to do it are acting in bad faith, and whose actual beef is that he’s not simping for genocidal dictators.

If Beehaw had a dime for every .ML tankie invading BeeHaw to slander socialists, we’d have more money than Facebook.

Fuck yeah unions!

If you think monetary economies developed from barter economies, attacking the OP for sharing the scientific consensus makes you look culty. You’ve got a lot of indignation and no evidence.

Feminist frequency survived both GamerGate and a Trump presidency. That’s a pretty long time when measured in hate-years.

Are you saying that ALL royalties for derivative works/use of IP are an abridgement of free speech in your view?

I do believe copyright, its continued extensions in favor of rights-holders, and associated attacks on the fair use doctrine are abridgements of free speech. I also believe each addition of complexity to copyright law is a gift to copyright law firms and the consolidated publishing corporations who can easily afford to employ them, as well as an attack on small publishers and authors to whom employing solicitors and barristers is an onerous burden. But that’s not what I’m arguing here.

I’m saying that granting eternal royalties from Peter Pan to GOSH creates a monetary disincentive for anyone but GOSH to publish derivative Peter Pan works. This creates a chilling effect on the republication of Barrie works and re-use of Peter Pan characters, and is worthy of outrage. This is similar in effect to the intractable libel laws that financially disincentivize publishing negative news about powerful figures and institutions in Britain, which is even more outrageous. I’m also saying that the special copyright status of Peter Pan and larger problems like the libel law situation are evidence of the same underlying issue; Britain’s relative disinterest in protecting free speech.

A lot of these people are small operators; most don’t have storefronts, some sell online, and a few through farmers’ markets.

This is part of a movement astroturfed by Gab and Truth Social to create a market for goods and services that caters to trumpist producers and consumers. None of these businesses are capable of growing past their trumpist market. When they make enough capital to get noticed by journalists, their growth is going to crater like MyPillow due to the political backlash.

Here’s an example vendor. She’s going to be making overpriced unhygienic peanut butter in her kitchen for less than minimum wage and taking advantage of her children’s free labor until they all burn out. If by some miracle she got the capital to buy the machines needed to make peanut butter to USDA standards and at scale, a proper boycott of her distributors would bring it all down.

They’re rubes, offering their depressed labor to their cult leaders in order to take a small chip out of a corporation’s bottom line. The Budweiser boycott is a great example of this - when a culture war exercise got out of hand, Republican thought leaders shut it down to avoid hurting one of their major donors. They make them think they’re going to build a thriving business, but the masters will throw them aside if the corporations pay the appropriate bribes.

Thank you continuing this dialogue; I saw your bio, and though we disagree on this particular issue, I think we have a lot in common, and I appreciate your participation here.

Neither GOSH nor the government control who can create derivative works.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. They used their position to selectively control publication of works they didn’t approve. That’s clearly censorship.

But even if they only collected royalties, it would still be a free speech issue. Selectively assigning monetary costs to certain speech is an abridgement of free speech, for the same reason SLAPP lawsuits are a free speech issue.

I think a solution where the community gets some kind of codified constitution is a good one, but it requires both a knowledge of organizational law and a understanding of what makes the community great. If things get nailed down too soon, or get something wrong, it could really mess BeeHaw up. Maybe it’s a good long term goal.

I do wish people would not use start-up terminology like ‘runway’ - it’s a aviation metaphor, and implies an eventual ‘take off’ which is usually the point at which a start-up goes public or is sold by the capital investment firm to take their sky-high profits.

I’d bee a lot less if they kept federation. They have good mod and admin instincts.

They don’t work. It’s total bunk.

I’ll go one further - they can never work. AI is trained using a system where an artist system generates art, and a gatekeeper system gives a confidence rating of how it looks human. The artist system goes through a training process until it can consistently fool the gatekeeper system. If there was a system that existed that could identify currently generated AI art, it would become the new gatekeeper system, and the artist system would only get better.

Copyright isn’t registered anymore, it’s granted on creation in almost all jurisdictions that matter. It’s not like there’s documentation beyond the published work.

Maybe a better framing would be “Rich would rather censor children’s story than pay for children’s hospital” - its understandable to not feel outrage over this based on all the worse things that are going on in the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s not deserving of outrage. I don’t think this is a case of perfect being the enemy of good, but rather the shock doctrine aspect of disaster capitalism; it’s difficult to gather sympathy for the principle of free speech when children are literally dying.

It’s important to look at this from a principled perspective; though isolated the Peter Pan, the case enshrines in law that what can be published can be restricted if there’s a sufficiently sympathetic non-sequitur issue. This isn’t even the “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” justification that was used to imprison anarchists for telling the truth about WWI, where the justification is related to the effect of the speech. Peter Pan stories have no natural connection to children’s health, but allowing sentimental framing to trump principled proceedure perpetuates a lack of care in British society for the principle of free speech. It’s a slippery slope that has been borne out in the ways censorship of journalism harm modern British society much more than ~1.5M yearly funding for a children’s hospital can justify.

It’s more than “Children deserve hospitals and stories too” - British children deserve hospitals and better government, stronger journalism, and protection from BBC and religious pedophiles too.

Good summary!

This makes it very different indeed.

Is it though? I’d frame it as “government robs children of new Peter Pan stories in order to pay for childrens’ hospital” – it’s like those ‘feel-good’ stories in the news about children laboring at lemonade stands to raise funds for their mother’s cancer treatment. It’s easy to forget that these are scenarios with only bleak options because of the unstated premise that the rich will never pay their share.

I love this song.