Believing that animals are just like us s hardly and outlandish belief, on the facts. We’re evolutionarily closely related. We have basically the same skeleton. Skull, spine, rib cage, hips, 4 extremities. Arms and legs go: 1 big bone, 2 smaller bones, and lotsa little bones. It looks to be the same with the brain.

We expect vegans not to blow up slaughterhouses or such. Fair enough. But expecting them to shut up about their beliefs is a bit much, no? Expecting them not to tell people how they feel, not to kiss in public, or hold a pride para… Sorry, wrong prosecuted minority.

I’ve heard these takes about vegans for literal decades now, and not once has an actual vegan popped up to tell me that I’m a murderer.

Ok, so that’s why you’re not making any sense. You have no idea what’s going on.

Look, it’s very simple. Vegans are a small, harmless minority. So some people bully them. Of course, it’s their own fault. They wouldn’t mind them if they weren’t “out and proud”. It’s always the same story. There’s almost no variation.

I thought you were saying that it’s ok to bully them because they believe the wrong thing. That’s what @redisdead is saying. He compares them to “right wing cunts” when they speak their beliefs. Fascis get bashis. Just like vegans, I guess.

Watch the company you keep.

Vegans believe that animals have the same rights to live as humans. A nazi believes that the “others” do not have the same right to live as “his people”.

I don’t think you’ll be able to convince me that these are morally or ethically equivalent positions. But I see the point. They both believe the wrong thing. The out-group sucks. Yes, I know how humans tick.

Ok, I understand. You don’t like them because of their beliefs.

At first, I was confused. Isn’t the fact that you believe something the only justification for saying something? I mean, otherwise you’d be lying. But you’re saying you disagree with the belief in the first place, right?

Well, it’s what they believe. What exactly is the problem there? I have never been called a murderer. There just aren’t that many vegans around. I don’t know in what kind of circles this would be a common occurrence.

They are a small, harmless minority. Isn’t that enough? Maybe it’s made worse by the fact that they are perceived as non-violent and effeminate, because of their strong opposition to suffering, even when the victims are helpless, like animals. There is no personal risk in bullying them. It’s like the hate for environmental activists, trans-women, or liberals in general. I wouldn’t know that vegans aggressively proselytize their life-style if people didn’t aggressively tell me so; something that they share with “the gays”. Of course, people wouldn’t mind if they didn’t shove it in their faces all the time. Where have I heard that before?

I prefer Threads.

You are a very brave person.

Defeatist opinion.

The commercial alternatives hope to make money with every additional user. They use AB testing and statistics to streamline the on-boarding and to increase engagement. The result may not be in the user’s interest (doom-scrolling, ragebait, …) but it works.

For a fediverse instance, any additional user is a cost, not the promise of money. Financially, you wouldn’t want that. Those who fund instances are giving a gift to the world for their own reasons. You can accept the gift or not. Those who keep instances running with donations will usually want to sustain the community of which they are part. They probably don’t want it to change very much.

So, I don’t think matters will change. Partly because the psychological engineering is antithetical to the fediverse ethos (as I see it, in my humble opinion). But mostly because the outcome we see is an inherent result of the incentive structure.

That looks like the St. Petersburg Paradox. Much ink has been spilled over it.

The expected payout is infinite. At any point, the “rational” (profit-maximizing) decision is to keep flipping, since you wager a finite sum of money to win an infinite sum. It’s very counter-intuitive, hence called a paradox.

In reality, a casino has finite money. You can work out how many coin flips it takes to bankrupt it. So you can work out how likely it is to reach that point with a given, finite sum of money. Martingale strategies have already been mentioned.

Come to think of it. That DMCA argument would really wreck fair use.

It’s illegal to remove “copyright management information” (CMI). In this case meaning the FOSS license. The argument was, that when copilot spits out verbatim snippets of source code without the license, this constitutes removal of the CMI. The point of the argument was that fair use is not a defense under the DMCA. These verbatim snippets are pretty obvious fair use to me, so countering that defense is important if they hope to get anywhere with their suit.

By the same argument, any meme image is illegal. They are taken from somewhere without the original license or attribution. Yikes.

Do Americans know the history of Arlington? I was quite amazed to learn how it became a military cemetery. Not hanging Robert Lee and the other high-ranking traitors is perhaps the biggest single mistake in US history. He is still the highest ranking US soldier to ever betray his country, no?

If it’s not clear, then it’s not compliant with the GDPR.

It’s not thaaat soft. It’s not quite clear what it means, exactly. The courts still have to work that out. But you will not get away with just any argument.

It’s never legal to collect more data than necessary and/or for an unspecified purpose.

Tracking for personalized ads could be based either on consent or on legitimate interest. If it’s consent, then they need to tell you up front what specifically they use the data for and some other things. If it’s legitimate interest, they can just start doing it, but still have to tell you afterward and also inform you that you have the right to opt out.

I guess, practically, whether a company claims one or the other is whether it feels lucky about a court case. With consent, you are on the safe side but it’s a little harder to get. Legitimate interest may get you more ad money in the short run but eventually, maybe or maybe not, a fine.

Don’t listen to me on that. I have no idea how the community feels on copyright or fair use. Whenever AI comes up, the most dogmatic copyright maximalism dominates. On other subjects, the debate is more nuanced. I don’t know how that fits together at all. But I guarantee you, if Alsup ruled on a case like this/OP, they would… Well, most comments would not like the ruling or him.

That’s not correct. The GDPR explicitly gives “direct marketing” as an example of a “legitimate interest”.

The GDPR prohibits processing of personal data, unless there is a legal basis for it. Personal data covers a lot more than you think, as does processing.

What counts as a legal basis may be seen in Article 6 of the GDPR. Consent is one option, but it must be informed and freely given; a very high bar. If you have a legitimate interest, you may process data without prior consent. However, you must still provide the “data subject” with information and give them the option to opt out. They must tell you the legal basis, which they have done, but also what exactly that their interest is. (And a couple more things.) There should be a statement somewhere containing that information.

The GDPR gives “direct marketing” as an example of a legitimate interest. Some DPOs interpret the term extremely narrowly, though. It’s a contentious issue. The courts will work it out over the next few years.

Yes, I know what you mean. But looking at the comments here, Fair Use is not a popular concept. I remember that Alsup specifically quoted the copyright clause in his ruling. I can’t imagine any argument that would make him rule, on the whole, for the plaintiffs in a case such as this.

Judge William Alsup.

Now I remember that guy. He decided oracle vs google. I can’t imagine he has many fans here.

Wow, long take. I didn’t want “much the same” to bear a lot of meaning. In the german inquisitorial system, in a criminal case, the judge takes over the (police) investigation from the prosecution. When the police become aware of a possible crime, they inform the bureau of the state attorney. A state attorney is responsible for the investigation and for uncovering the truth. But once the case goes to court, the responsibility goes to the judge.

In a civil suit, the parties are basically in charge and not the judge. It’s true that the judge has a more active role in German civil procedure. While the court is not supposed to run its own investigation, it can request additional evidence if it’s necessary to judge the arguments of either side. I am not clear on the details. Where matters of fact must be determined by an expert, either party can request the court to provide one. But they can also make their own arrangements. The court can also solicit an expert opinion on its own, if necessary. Typically, the expert’s opinion is given as a written statement. An oral disposition may happen when questions remain. Afaik, it’s unusual to depose an expert without having first requested a written statement. Either party or the court may question the witness.