Oh come on. I dislike copyright law as much as anyone, but this just makes the case against it look stupid.

See also: Windows Live, Surface, 365

I thought I’d read somewhere that in Germany, the regional governments do most of the heavy lifting in terms of legislation, with a very limited federal government

The federal government in Germany certainly has more legislative power (in comparison to state governments) than that of the US.

The thing about Germany is that in Germany, there are many areas where federal laws are enforced by state executive branches, which isn’t really a thing in the US.

It’s probably going to be even harder to prevent here because due to federation it’s very easy to open multiple accounts across instances and no instance admin has full user data of accounts on other instances…

But it also provides the opportunity to move to instances (and their communities) where the problem is well-managed, if any exist.

wait wait wait reddit is against AI bots? news to me… https://documentingourdecline.substack.com/p/ai-bots-appeared-after-reddit-partnered

(Why exactly would anyone believe that face ID verification can stop AI bots? Have they seen how well generative AI can generate videos of humans?)

The harm this law aims to address is grave and real. For the 99% of the population who aren’t compiling their own kernels, the ability to “age-lock” a child account to prevent young children from accessing doomscroll brainrot on Instagram is an amazing and valuable feature.

I disagree even with this premise. I reject the idea that it’s legitimate to want to keep young people from seeing, watching, reading things that they actively want to see/watch/read simply because we have a vague idea that “it’s not good for them”.

My parents too unfortunately agreed with your idea, and I remember being a (teenaged) minor and worried that my parents might find out too much about what I’ve been reading and doing on the Internet and punish me for it, I don’t wish that on anyone who happened to be born after me. I hereby resolve that if I ever have children, they will not have to worry about this. I think it is a very good thing that modern technology makes it somewhat harder for parents to oppress their children in such a manner.

But there’s nothing inherently wrong with OS developers implementing such a feature if that is what their customers want. There’s a lot wrong with the government mandating it.

The principled “linux source code is free-speech, and no government mandates can compel changes” stance is quite divorced from reality.

No, it’s an exactly correct legal analysis; at least morally, and should be legally.

Are crypto-exchange founders likewise free to implement whatever fraudulent schemes they like, as their source code is their speech to freely dictate?

I’m not sure what scenario you have in mind. Distributing software (even software that can be used for illegal activities) is free speech. Running and using software isn’t (automatically) speech, it’s an action that can be declared to be criminal. Anyone can use Thunderbird to send phishing emails, but it would be absurd to prosecute the developers of Thunderbird for that.

I agree with the idea that a user account with an age field is less bad than actual (biometric or ID-based) age verification.

The rest of your post is so full of meaningless buzzwords that it’s impossible to write anything coherent about it.

With chat control we actually have to distinguish two different things that people sometimes confuse:

• voluntary chat control (“chat control 1.0”), which is currently already the law in the EU
• mandatory chat control (“chat control 2.0”), proposed in 2022

Voluntary chat control is about letting operators of communication services voluntarily scan messages for certain illegal activity (without this constituting a violation of data protection laws). This doesn’t break encryption and isn’t a part of a war on general purpose computing. While there are many good arguments against it, it’s not especially catastrophic. It’s a detail of business regulation.

Mandatory chat control is about forcing them to do so, which must necessarily break encryption and impose limits on software freedom. This is what is most important to oppose.

The most recent win ended up rejecting even (most) voluntary chat control, which is a good sign that mandatory chat control won’t get a majority either.

Yes; recent news have made me somewhat optimistic that the resistance to it is winning though.

Age verification laws currently look like a much greater danger to freedom.

2000s: war on general purpose computing because of copyright

2020s: war on general purpose computing because of child protection

In the 2000s the forces of freedom mostly won, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act didn’t become law. So far it seems that we are currently losing. :(

They can be. Google Fonts is a good source for freely licensed fonts.

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

I think someone highly confused about the UI.

Yes, I think it’s realistic if we look at how things in computing have changed even just within the last few decades.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#monthly-200901-202603 in early 2009, IE was at ~65%, Chrome at <2%, we’ve gone from that to “IE does not exist” and Chrome in the same spot IE was then

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share#monthly-200901-202603 in early 2009, Windows was at ~94%, now it is at ~26% with Android having taken the top spot, even that is just at ~37%, so there is now no dominant operating system overall

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202603 even disregarding mobile devices, Windows has fallen from ~95% to ~61% in that time frame

and maybe I’m just old but early 2009 doesn’t seem an enormously long time ago somehow

that has already happened tbh

2006: user generated content is a revolution! We are now exchanging information and ideas directly with each other without needing information gatekeepers like traditional media or paid advertisers or anything like that! The future is gonna be a utopia where the powerful will be challenged at every turn!

2026: a significant percentage of “user generated content” is generated either by AI or people who are being paid to do so for commercial or political reasons… I suppose those are “users” too…

why, humanity, why??? ;____;

How does this compare to salaries for comparable positions at comparable for-profit companies?

It’s kinda the point of donations that they can afford to hire people whose labor costs that much.

I’m not sure if that law will pass/has passed,

It has already passed the legislature and been signed into law, but not become operative yet, won’t until 2027-01-01.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

That’s not very similar to how AI typically writes, at all.

because civil liberties don’t fit neatly into a left-right spectrum, despite being a lot more important than the economic policies that the left-right spectrum aims to describe, which is why I think the left-right spectrum is mostly useless

Yes, and it also says LIBE, which is the committee, not plenary, where this was recently voted on. It’s clearly not enough members for a plenary vote, this post is misinformation as titled.

It used to be that similar (and equally bad) ideas were getting traction because of copyright law, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act

Now other excuses for the same thing have been invented. I wonder which will be next.