General_Effort

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 days ago

you defend a Big Tech company

Why lie about me? Oh well, when Ayn Rand's ideology is being passed off as socialism then I might as well be.

you have a clear answer to who “they” are?

Could I be talking about those corporations demanding money? Those rich, famous and well-connected people demanded their capitalist rents? Who knows? Big mystery.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, that's one of the slogans they use to manipulate you. It's like the one going around before elections. Both parties are the same and so an outsider is needed, like Trump. How's that working out for the US right now?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Oh please. A tech-bro is just a male nerd who the cool kids don't like.

Here's a blast from the past:

See anyone you recognize?

Next you'll tell me that people like Shawn Presser or Christoph Schuhmann aren't tech-bros.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 days ago (4 children)

So long as we’re not just singling out Meta. They’ve all done it.

They have to single out Meta for the narrative to work. Objectively, this is about major content owners, corporations, wanting a piece of something other people have created. That's a tough sell, so you have to spin a story.

Not seeding is hilariously on-brand for Meta though. Maybe it’s the ‘possession < distribution’ defence?

Sorta. AI training is clear-cut fair use, which is why you get manipulative stories like this one. What exactly do these out-of-context quotes say about the law? Nothing, but it serves the narrative.

Actually seeding the content is problematic. If you knew that the downloaders had some legal purpose, that might work. But just sharing it is hard to justify.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Why not? Because he's dead and can't protest against the distortion of his views?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. That was Snowden’s secret.

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, 1961

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When you're shilling for copyright, at least pick a lane. Are they bad for "pirating" or bad for not supporting "piracy"?

I guess it doesn't matter as long as the owners collect their rent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft.

That's an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?

When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.

When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.

Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn't require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I'm trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it's stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that soviet states would have negotiated with owners of private property before using it for public benefit?

 
 
 
 

Wanted to share this, didn't know where.

 

No d'uh. It's interesting because it's a more scholarly take, coming from a (notoriously right-wing) "libertarian" think tank.

When you combine the likely cost of mass deportation with the lost fiscal benefits from recent illegal immigrants, reversing the "Biden Border Crisis" will end up imposing almost $6 trillion in costs on U.S. taxpayers.

view more: next ›