rektifier

joined 2 years ago
[–] rektifier 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This whole thing doesn't make sense to me. If the issue is the preview that facebook/google show next to the links then it should already be covered by copyright law. If they want to charge for links without preview then that's just plain wrong.

The way it targets corporations with more bargaining power than the news industry is also weird. Why does bargaining power matter? Is it because the news industry intends to extract payments from everyone later and they want to give the big tech companies no incentive to come to the smaller players' defense? Keep in mind that the biggest news orgs are big corporations themselves. Or is it written this way just to avoid naming facebook and google directly?

[–] rektifier 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I gave the bill a quick read.

It depends on the contents of the link. Is it a bare URL? Is it a text “click here”? Is it the title of the linked page? Is it a snippet of the linked page? You can quickly see how linking can incorporate copying depending on how it’s done.

I consider snippets copying, not linking, but let's agree to disagree on the terminology, because the bill covers anything from URLs to snippets anyway.

significant bargaining power imbalance

This is what the bill actually says, so we're small fish and get a free ride.

[–] rektifier 1 points 2 years ago

It's not clear which "Chinese" he said. There are different words in Chinese for Chinese nationals and ethnic Chinese but both are translated to "Chinese" in English.

[–] rektifier 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Linking is very different from downloading or copying. A link is only a reference to the content, not the content itself. The news site retains full control over the content. If the news site wants to make more money from visitors, they can use ads or paywalls.

And of course it wouldn’t be Lemmy, the app, paying. Maybe not even Lemmy, the instance owner, or the poster since neither of them are profiting from that linking.

What if an instance is getting enough donations to be considered profitable? Drawing the line at profitability just punishes success and efficiency.

BTW a lot of posts in c/canada have snippets copied from the linked articles. How is this any different from FB and google showing links and snippets?

[–] rektifier 6 points 2 years ago

Combined toilet-sinks are a thing. It saves water by reusing the water you used to wash your hands to flush the toilet.

[–] rektifier 4 points 2 years ago

You can download everything in your account with google takeout

[–] rektifier 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It all depends on how the other instance responds.

  • If their admin don't want to do anything about users causing problems in other instances then I'd say defederate temporarily (1 month or more) each time their users break our rules.
  • If their admin actively encourages this kind of behaviour then defederate permanently.
  • If they have rules against bad behaviour on other instances and non-negligible consequences for violations then try to work with them, but still defederate temporarily (~1 week) when our/their moderation team can't keep up.
[–] rektifier 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I should clarify. When the skinheads from the Nazi house down the street come over to visit, they must follow our instance-wide and community rules. This should be a basic fediquette for everyone. If they repeatedly fail to do that then we will have to defederate them. But if they check the swastika at the door and keep the Nazism to themselves while they're here, I don't see why not. Most of the calls for defederation so far have been about people not wanting to see activities happening on remote communities on certain instances.

[–] rektifier 7 points 2 years ago

Nay. Banning the defederationists makes you as authoritarian as them. We should instead constantly remind them that much of the social progress they take for granted today were made possible by free speech.

[–] rektifier 17 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Nay for now. While there's a few communities on lemmygrad that I want to see like Late Stage Capitalism, lemmygrad has been defederated since day one, and all of us (should) have known this when we joined, so there's no hurry to refederate with them.

The real solution is for Lemmy to let users block instances from their own view, then all the defederation discussions will be moot. When that happens, we should do as you proposed - federate as much as permitted by law.

[–] rektifier 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Nay. You're gonna encounter these people IRL. It's better to prepare yourself in a low stake environment like an internet forum.

[–] rektifier 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lemmy has a view source feature that shows you how someone else formatted their post. Click the 3 dots under the post and find the "view source" button.

view more: ‹ prev next ›