I think especially Lemmy.ml should rather focus more on cleaning up their Tankie & moderator issues

As much as I would love to see it, I don’t think the lead devs of lemmy, who own both lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml, are going to ban themselves.

You’re posting to /c/foss, not /c/freeofchargeandthecodeisavailableforinspection.

You’re mixing up cranks and bigots. Bigots tend to get banned because they’re harmful. Cranks tend to exclude themselves on principle.

The term “crank” is usually used as a pejorative, but cranks can sometimes be beneficial. Richard Stallman is the prototypical example of a Free Software crank. Definitely annoying, but also definitely a net benefit to all of us.

That’d be covered by #4:

The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

There is a clause about redistribution (1), and it expressly specifies that it applies to “aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources”, not single, standalone works.

That is a weird way of wording it. In practice I doubt there are any OSI-approved licenses that prohibit standalone commercial distribution. If there were, you could trivially comply by just including a “hello world” program to make it an aggregate distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

for topic based instances. I was just looking for an updated list the other day.

I’ve got a pretty good list here: https://kbin.social/m/specialized_instances/t/186667/Big-list-of-specialized-instances

From the RFC, it sounds like the system proposed here is more robust than what kbin has. Tags on kbin are just freeform user-defined hashtags.

Trust, but verify.

That one had me wondering if it was someone parodying a bot. Given the rest of it though, they’d have to be way more dedicated to the bit than is realistic.

Anyway, back to discussions about chainsaws and related topics:

https://media.kbin.social/media/a1/64/a164ea61650cc28b0f8e3ed8a38be1d204f03d863b36e3e322ea2246b2542a6e.png

WONTFIX

The goal of the copyleft movement (which overlaps heavily with the free software movement) is to carve out an intellectual commons that can’t be re-enclosed. This commons is important for a number of reasons, including that it tends to be better for end-users of software in the sense that anti-features can’t really gain a foothold. It does not automatically solve UX issues, nor does it stop people from using the knowledge of the commons to do bad things.

Much of the strength of the intellectual commons is that it builds on itself, instead of having to re-invent the same things in a dozen or more different proprietary endeavors. If we were to start a “peace software” movement, it would be incompatible with the commons, due to the restrictions it imposes. Peace software can’t build on copyleft software, and none of the commons can build on peace software. These sorts of things were considered, and compatibility was deemed more important than pushing more specific values. This isn’t a matter of the FSF or OSI standing in the way, it’s just that “peace software” would have to go it alone.

Due to this dynamic, those that want to build “anticapitalist software” would be better served by using the GNU AGPL, rather than a license that restricts commercial use. The AGPL fixes the loophole that the GPL leaves open for network services, and should allow us to carve out a new noncommercial online ecosystem. It should even be used for non-network code, as that code may be repurposed or built upon by network services. I’m glad to see lemmy, kbin, and mastodon using it.

Sympathy lost for this attention seeker.

She was an attention seeker back on reddit

So you never had any sympathy to begin with, because aTtEnShUn SeEkEr, which is the lamest cop-out ever. Just say you hate women and get it over with.

Sounds like you’re just proving her point.

We got overrun by Belgium. -_-

You wouldn’t shitpost in the policeman’s helmet

This meme is stealing.

Alright, I’ve hit my limit for dealing with bad faith argument. Maybe you were genuinely trying to be decent, but in any case I’m done.

I was hoping to avoid getting deep enough into this that I have to break out the block quotes myself, but oh well. Here we are.

you shouldn’t make a straw man out of the position of people you disagree with or be uncivil.

I don’t think I’ve been any less charitable than you and weirdwallace75, though. It’s not like any of us are steel-manning each others points. And why would we? There’s no benefit in this context. It’d just be a longer route to the conclusion that I jumped to early, that we fundamentally disagree and that an internet comments argument with strangers is not going to be sufficient to change any minds. If we were all friends, and frequently spent time discussing things in person, and trusted each other, then sure, maybe we could make some progress. But we’re not, and we don’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It’s not clear what exactly you’re accusing me of. Mindlessly parroting other peoples’ views?

Sort of? See the definition of talking points. Not necessarily mindless, but certainly low-effort and static. Like, I’ve seen all of them before. Literally every single anti-gun talking point. They didn’t get me to change my mind the first dozen times, so why would they now? They simply do not address the reasons that I am in favor of a well-armed society. As an anarchist, I care about how power is allocated. I want power to be widely distributed, not concentrated. And guns are tools of power.

If what I said is so weak and easily refuted it’s a little strange that the best rebuttal you can come up with is “you’re wrong”.

I didn’t say that they were easily refuted. Just as I don’t find the talking points convincing, I don’t expect you to find the usual responses to them convincing either. We’d just get bogged down in side arguments. However, I also wasn’t inclined to concede the point. Which leaves us at “you’re wrong”.

Why do you think you know what I’m concerned about?

Because you said it yourself? You likened planning for fascist violence to planning for the rapture.

I could be far left,
I could be far right,

You’re not. I’m certain enough of it to bet money. Unless this has all been a very weird acting exercise.

none of that would have any bearing on something that comes down to the question of “is this an effective tool for the task”.

It does, though. Your worldview affects your perception of the problem, and your perception of the potential tools for dealing with it. It affects what you pay attention to, what you learn, and what you dismiss. We disagree both on the level of severity and on the effectiveness of each tool, due to our differences in worldview.

I’m a Utilitiarian

I’m not really talking about utilitarianism vs egoism or whatever else, though that could play a small part. I’m more referring to the totality of our worldviews, our mental models of how everything works.

I was hoping to avoid getting deep enough into this that I have to break out the block quotes myself, but oh well. Here we are.

you shouldn’t make a straw man out of the position of people you disagree with or be uncivil.

I don’t think I’ve been any less charitable than you and weirdwallace75, though. It’s not like any of us are steel-manning each others points. And why would we? There’s no benefit in this context. It’d just be a longer route to the conclusion that I jumped to early, that we fundamentally disagree and that an internet comments argument with strangers is not going to be sufficient to change any minds. If we were all friends, and frequently spent time discussing things in person, and trusted each other, then sure, maybe we could make some progress. But we’re not, and we don’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It’s not clear what exactly you’re accusing me of. Mindlessly parroting other peoples’ views?

Sort of? See the definition of talking points. Not necessarily mindless, but certainly low-effort and static. Like, I’ve seen all of them before. Literally every single anti-gun talking point. They didn’t get me to change my mind the first dozen times, so why would they now? They simply do not address the reasons that I am in favor of a well-armed society. As an anarchist, I care about how power is allocated. I want power to be widely distributed, not concentrated. And guns are tools of power.

If what I said is so weak and easily refuted it’s a little strange that the best rebuttal you can come up with is “you’re wrong”.

I didn’t say that they were easily refuted. Just as I don’t find the talking points convincing, I don’t expect you to find the usual responses to them convincing either. We’d just get bogged down in side arguments. However, I also wasn’t inclined to concede the point. Which leaves us at “you’re wrong”.

Why do you think you know what I’m concerned about?

Because you said it yourself? You likened planning for fascist violence to planning for the rapture.

I could be far left,
I could be far right,

You’re not. I’m certain enough of it to bet money. Unless this has all been a very weird acting exercise.

none of that would have any bearing on something that comes down to the question of “is this an effective tool for the task”.

It does, though. Your worldview affects your perception of the problem, and your perception of the potential tools for dealing with it. It affects what you pay attention to, what you learn, and what you dismiss. We disagree both on the level of severity and on the effectiveness of each tool, due to our differences in worldview.

I’m a Utilitiarian

I’m not really talking about utilitarianism vs egoism or whatever else, though that could play a small part. I’m more referring to the totality of our worldviews, our mental models of how everything works.