5 ms·

It’s already fixed to some extent. On Reddit, you make a new subreddit of your own. On GitHub, you fork. The problem is that some projects are too big to effect

It’s already fixed to some extent. On Reddit, you make a new subreddit of your own. On GitHub, you fork. The problem is that some projects are too big to effectively fork (or forking would over leverage the community) or people are lazy and don’t want to do the forking themselves despite accurately identifying the presence of a problem.

josephcsible 5y ago
What about when it's the Reddit or GitHub admins who judge you to be guilty of thoughtcrime?
- cube00 5y ago
  ...or the Reddit CEO who goes into the backend to invisibly edit your posts. https://web.archive.org/web/20170720143148/https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ekdy9/the_admins_are_suffering_from_low_energy_have/dad5sf1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170720143148/https://www.reddi...
Sevii 5y ago
Or more realistically, you get banned from Reddit and Github.
cube00 5y ago
Have we already forgotten what happened to youtube-dl at the hands of GitHub? I know GitHub were only following the DMCA but it shows they have the capability to not only remove the project but also all of its forks.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  I genuinely don't understand the fear generated by the youtube-dl storm in a teacup. It's a great example of the system working: someone thought they had a DMCA case so they filed a takedown, the takedown temporarily removed the content, then after a review the content was put back up. This is just evidence that this particular slope isn't as slippery as some thought.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    > the content was put back up. The repo is back up, but the project is dead. I suspect the developers got nasty letters from lawyers behind the scenes. I believe yt-dlp is the future of this project, but it's presently lesser known than youtube-dl so the lawyers got what they wanted in the end.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      That's a problem with our laws. Copyright should just be a contract between seller and buyer. You promise not to redistribute this. If you didn't buy something, you have no contract with the seller and you can be free to download whatever you want or build whatever software or service you want. The onus of finding who is the buyer breaking the contract and dragging them to court is on the seller. We shouldn't have things like DMCA which allow you to censor anything tangentially related or being able to scare people off, but that's what you get when you have a corrupted government that does the bidding of Big Business. Similarly, patents shouldn't be a thing. You came up with something, you already have first mover advantage. If someone comes along and does the same thing better, too bad, they were better than you. If you have a manufacturing secret, protect it with contracts and sue for damage if they get broken.
      - satyrnein 5y ago
        This is effectively saying we just shouldn't have copyright. Person A buys a movie and agrees to not distribute it, but goes ahead and does it anyway to Person B. Person B hosts it for everyone, and Persons C through Z get it and also host it. You're suggesting Person A is liable, but the cat's out of the bag and Persons B through Z can continue redistributing it forever because they never agreed to anything. If this is the desired goal, you don't need copyright at all, you can already get Person A on violating Terms of Service or whatever.
SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
So you can sit around in your new subreddit with enough subscribers that you can count them on your fingers, posting freely, while /r/politics (or wherever) has a subscriber base measured in millions. Reminds me a bit of the "free speech zones". It's a poor facsimile of true freedom of speech. Seeing as the new public squares are, by and large, digital spaces controlled by megacorps, we need to expand the first amendment to apply to private enterprise.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is not the same thing as requirement that others listen. If someone has no audience, with all the platforms that are available, it's not because they're being censored. It's because nobody cares what they have to say.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    It's not that nobody wants to listen. There are plenty of people who want to listen, but the megacorps refuse to let the talkers and listeners connect.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    This is not what is happening on these platforms. r/thedonald had millions of subscribers and not a single one was forced to listen. Then it was banned by reddit for thoughtcrime.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      You could have brought up hard left subreddits getting banned too. Like Chapo. So it doesn’t seem like only the right is persecuted/appearing to continue the trope of how the right are such victims.
      - fallingknife 5y ago
        Same thing

josephcsible 5y ago

What about when it's the Reddit or GitHub admins who judge you to be guilty of thoughtcrime?

cube00 5y ago
...or the Reddit CEO who goes into the backend to invisibly edit your posts. https://web.archive.org/web/20170720143148/https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ekdy9/the_admins_are_suffering_from_low_energy_have/dad5sf1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170720143148/https://www.reddi...

Sevii 5y ago

Or more realistically, you get banned from Reddit and Github.

cube00 5y ago

Have we already forgotten what happened to youtube-dl at the hands of GitHub? I know GitHub were only following the DMCA but it shows they have the capability to not only remove the project but also all of its forks.

Godel_unicode 5y ago
I genuinely don't understand the fear generated by the youtube-dl storm in a teacup. It's a great example of the system working: someone thought they had a DMCA case so they filed a takedown, the takedown temporarily removed the content, then after a review the content was put back up. This is just evidence that this particular slope isn't as slippery as some thought.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  > the content was put back up. The repo is back up, but the project is dead. I suspect the developers got nasty letters from lawyers behind the scenes. I believe yt-dlp is the future of this project, but it's presently lesser known than youtube-dl so the lawyers got what they wanted in the end.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    That's a problem with our laws. Copyright should just be a contract between seller and buyer. You promise not to redistribute this. If you didn't buy something, you have no contract with the seller and you can be free to download whatever you want or build whatever software or service you want. The onus of finding who is the buyer breaking the contract and dragging them to court is on the seller. We shouldn't have things like DMCA which allow you to censor anything tangentially related or being able to scare people off, but that's what you get when you have a corrupted government that does the bidding of Big Business. Similarly, patents shouldn't be a thing. You came up with something, you already have first mover advantage. If someone comes along and does the same thing better, too bad, they were better than you. If you have a manufacturing secret, protect it with contracts and sue for damage if they get broken.
    - satyrnein 5y ago
      This is effectively saying we just shouldn't have copyright. Person A buys a movie and agrees to not distribute it, but goes ahead and does it anyway to Person B. Person B hosts it for everyone, and Persons C through Z get it and also host it. You're suggesting Person A is liable, but the cat's out of the bag and Persons B through Z can continue redistributing it forever because they never agreed to anything. If this is the desired goal, you don't need copyright at all, you can already get Person A on violating Terms of Service or whatever.

SturgeonsLaw 5y ago

So you can sit around in your new subreddit with enough subscribers that you can count them on your fingers, posting freely, while /r/politics (or wherever) has a subscriber base measured in millions. Reminds me a bit of the "free speech zones". It's a poor facsimile of true freedom of speech. Seeing as the new public squares are, by and large, digital spaces controlled by megacorps, we need to expand the first amendment to apply to private enterprise.

Godel_unicode 5y ago
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as requirement that others listen. If someone has no audience, with all the platforms that are available, it's not because they're being censored. It's because nobody cares what they have to say.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  It's not that nobody wants to listen. There are plenty of people who want to listen, but the megacorps refuse to let the talkers and listeners connect.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  This is not what is happening on these platforms. r/thedonald had millions of subscribers and not a single one was forced to listen. Then it was banned by reddit for thoughtcrime.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    You could have brought up hard left subreddits getting banned too. Like Chapo. So it doesn’t seem like only the right is persecuted/appearing to continue the trope of how the right are such victims.
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      Same thing