hoshikarakitaridia

I mean I know why ppl are scared it will kill off the fediverse, but the only thing that can kill off the fediverse is the Devs. As long as they don't sell it or start involving a bigger company in the development, we are fine. And pull requests are transparent and therefore not a thread with enough common sense.

I see the risk but I don't think it's that imminent.

Interesting

Why the hell washe not awarded his whole fees? Maybe the jury didn't think he'd been spending that much money? Well what an annoying outcome.

Yeah you never know what their research looked like. Maybe they checked and got a whole bench of oil execs in there.

Sounds like they knew what they were doing.

Not a crypto hater so much as the idea of it goes.

It's a lot like the rest of the internet: anonymous things moving and interacting can be unpredictable. From what I've seen on the dark net, I'd assume we will see the same extremes manifesting in transactions; that is that it will be very helpful for crimes, but also very helpful for ppl who need weed medically but can't get it legally, ppl who need money because they are pursued politically, or ppl in other dire circumstances.

It's all very complex, and I think there is a legit good reason for it. That said, I'm not the person to judge what outweighs, I just know it's far more complex than "crypto bad" or "crypto yes". Let's just hope whoever will be in this position is far knowledgeable in that regard than me.

Sincerely, a small developer and 3d artist.

I might be ignorant, but where's the relevant case law making copyright apply to AI?

I know that copyright definitely applies if you record things 1:1. I also know we're on the brink of getting new laws regarding AI. But from what I know there's still nothing that a lower court can safely rely on. And I'm talking EU, as well as US.

If I'm wrong please tell me, I'm excited to learn about what I missed.

Ooooh can we sue them? I'd love to sue them. Shout it out loud that they are purposely manipulating users and investors into thinking how bad Lemmy is and how many ppl have opinions.

As if bbc wouldn't get you upvoted to oblivion

That's one of the things that this platform's name is appearently based on. Just FYI; so you and the main developer have something in common :)

Man there's literally only one thing stopping me from using mastodon and that's likes.

I know marketing, and shit, and likes sometimes skew things, but without likes any toot is given the same weight, no matter if it's a good or bad toot. There's no way for me to see through the chaos that emerges from this.

I know there are reasons not to do this, but I damn well know I'm not the only one, and I'm sure it would make it more appealing for a lot of ppl unfamiliar with mastodon. You could even make it optional so ppl can turn it off and there would be no harm done.

That's a big yikes and I hope they will find another way...

There are a lot of reasons for this general trend, but let me add my two cents to make a case for the sudden influx of user-opposed changes:

I don't have a source for this, but I remember that Linus spoke about this on the LTT WAN-Show. Basically, abunch of big silicon valley investors are pulling out of all of the big platforms, therefore leaving them with a huge hole in their profitability. This means, that right now a lot of them are scrambling to scrape together more money over time, so all of those platforms are sustainable.

Obviously this has to observed in conjunction with all of those are trends that are already mentioned by other comments, but this gives more basis as to why now, and why to this extent.

If someone else knows what I'm talking about please add quotes and sources because I don't like the good old 'dude trust me' guarantee one bit.

I mean faking reviews is literally violating laws in some countries, so it's not like there's no basis.