You could use an app

If 50% of firefox users donated 2 dollars per year mozilla could work for people instead of Google or at least people AND google

Why is that a gap worth filling? There is no benefit to users as long as its free of a EULA they don’t have to care either way. For those wanting to produce open source software based on same they already have all the rights they could need. The only party clamoring for permissively licensed software are companies intending to close off the source and sell other people’s work.

I understand why they would want to do that I don’t understand why anyone would feel the need to work for free for something someone else closes off.

How about just firewall France and discover if legislators find cause to pass new laws.

Already compressed files like video don’t meaningfully compress more. Compression isn’t magic.

It doesn’t matter for practical purposes you can’t make people pay attention as if driving without the actual engagement of driving. There is going to be a delay in taking over and in a lot of cases it wont matter by the time the human is effectively in control.

Autopilot isn’t being marketed to aviation enthusiasts nor is it a plane so it doesn’t matter how autopilot in planes works it matters what the perception is. They could have used a more appropriate term like advanced cruise control

FSD is just a lie because its a description of a product they intend to develop not something that exists on the car you are buying now

I would instantly discount it based purely on not having third party verification or enough details for a third party to replicate.

Once you start hosting an instance that has open registration, it’s not just “their house” anymore. They are providing a service to people. They do so willingly. Arbitrairly blocking instances because you don’t know how something works and don’t bother to check it isn’t the way to host a free and open instance.

You seem to be uniquely bad at reading so this is comment is the start of this subthread you originally replied to. Nobody ever suggested they COULDN’T implement any rule they please. It was never a point anyone brought up for you to be refuting. It is literally you dishonestly trying to steer the discussion away from the actual point of discussing SHOULD they.

The discussion is not whether they can set those rules its should they and should we keep participating

So is discussion on the topic of piracy that doesn’t include actual links to content.

The law in the US is that you aren’t responsible for what your users post unless you are specifically legally notified and furthermore the communities at issue don’t host links to infringing content they host discussions on the topic

Feel free to leave if this is how you talk to people

They CAN do all of those things but people would be right to critique them for it. Freedom isn’t freedom from criticism or complaint. Furthermore they want this to be a functional community as much as their users do which is why this discussion even exists.

It would be preferable if you would lie less. Evil pirate uploads potentially_infringing.mp3 to to filehost. Filehost actually serves potentially_infringing.mp3, a community on db0 hosts a link to potentially_infringing.mp3, lemmy.world caches locally a copy of data from db0. Of those the one guy directly uploading the information is at risk of an extremely unlikely single digit thousands of dollars.

Nobody not even evil pirate himself is at risk of decades in prison or millions in debt. Companies responsibility basically ends at taking stuff down when specifically notified of infringing content.

Your argument is that user hosts infringing_song.mp3 on file_host, a community on lemmy.ml has a link to filehost and lemmy.world has a cached copy of the text containing the link to lemmy.ml which has a link to filehost and you think lemmy.world has legal exposure?

Why didn’t he get banned from using the internet?

This isn’t useful or sufficient. You have to consider how many bots get banned and cost to determine efficacy. If you want 10,000 fake people to manipulate real people $10,000 doesn’t seem a high price if you make the fake people act organic enough that they largely aren’t banned.

It would be more useful if a singular service verified sufficient credentials to prove you were an authentic human and allowed you to auth to various sites. This in turn creates the problem that verifiers now know a LOT about your online life.

If the verification involved site -> verifier -> government held public key I think you could arrange so that none of the parties had enough info to identify users.

It’s really not. A pair of shoes has one owner by its nature we can’t both wear it. If I take yours you can no longer wear it. Because valuables are locked up the only way to take it is usually to commit some other crime like breaking into your house or your locker or assaulting your person.

Copyright isn’t something I agreed to or even had any meaningful say in its something lawmakers promised they wouldn’t let happen on my behalf without any input from me before I was born. Rather than enforcing the safety of my person and home against removal of my property it says that you own certain combinations of words and even if I use my paper and ink to write them as soon as I write enough similar words it becomes your property. Moreso than just not being an enforcement of the inherently exclusive nature of physical property it is a violation of it because it assigns my physical property to you.