v7x

I agree with most of the article, but the author faltered in the area I predicted he would before I began to read. He expresses fear that without some restraint that sites might become "like 8chan". To which I have to ask, why is that a problem? Because its a hotbed for hate speech? What is hate speech? I'm sure I dont need to elaborate further on what I see wrong with that. What people seem to forget/ignore is that hate speech and other forms of taboo content a) existed before 8chan, 4chan, and other sites with similar cultures, b) would continue to exist even if these sites were removed, and c) currently exists on every other digital platform where people may create communicative content. Taboo content will always exist. You may not like it. I may not like it. But even if it was made illegal to say anything stronger than "I do not accept <x>.", people would still go on the same way as before, albeit likely with more subtlety.

With that in mind, I'd also argue that there should be spaces for "anything goes" content. If people are going to do it anyway, why not give them their own space? Let it be an outlet for those who choose to partake in such content. If we arent willing to accept certain kinds of content everywhere, lets at least allow it somewhere. It will still exist regardless of what we do, but at least if it has its own space we can separate oursepves if we so desire.

Lastly, to make sites like 8chan out to have no value other than content some might find deplorable is, frankly, as close minded as those who the author apparently fears. If you hadn't geussed already I use 4chan regularlly and its brought much more positive value to my life than negative. The technology board is what got me into programming in the first place. Its through them that I learned about Linux, the benifits of FOSS, the history of computing, and skills that have lead me to be succesful in my life. They are even the ones who lead me to hacker news. Maybe the messages they gave me were worded in a way that some deem undesirable. But when looking at the message itself and not the envelope its wrapped in there is value to be found in these spaces. If the culture is not for you, thats fine! I understand. But please, don't see that as a reason to condemn those of us who do use these sites. We have a right to exist too.

So long as certain content (that is not restricted by external forces, i.e. the law) is prohibited from the platform, I fail to see why they should be considered anything other than a publisher. If the platform can only be used for content they approve of, they can't be defined as anything else.

Twitter labeled it, so it must be fake!

Twitter didn't label it, so it must be real!

When you are as big and as powerful as Google, the more your every action will be scrutinized. Thats the way it should be, as any move an entity of their size makes will cause waves the world over. Is all the criticism justified? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact that people are criticising is only beneficial.

Also, tackling safety and bias in the models is a key focus area for us, and given the challenges related to this, we are not currently releasing an external research demo.

Read: We don't want the internet to turn our program into Tay 2.0 because we are super duper serious.

I get why these companies do this. But I can't help but feel like attempting to eliminate "bias" and tackle "safety" are counter productive to the goal of developing softwate desinged to mimic a species that is by and large biased and unsafe. Purposefully hindering a program because you're afraid it might produce results is not a healthy method of development, especially in an area like AI where we are still working to understand the basics of the field. Let the programs "learn" what's objective before trying to constrain it with the subjective.

I see a few comments in here, and have seen similar comments in similar topics in other threads, saying that they dont understand why anyone would choose this over other FOSS licenses. These questions are asked from a developer-centric perspective. FOSS never has been, and never will be, developer-centric. Free as in freedom software was created to be USER-centric. The whole point is to take power AWAY from the developer, because otherwise the balance is always in the developer's favor. The benefit for the developer is that developers are also users, so they in turn benefit from others releasing the software as FOSS, both as libraries to write better software with and as programs used in day to day computing.

Any issues companies have with FOSS licenses is entirely on them, assuming they arent one of the few who actively contributes to and fights for FOSS. MongoDB doesn't like competition from Amazon? Understandable. But don't play the victim and then turn around and screw everyone who isn't Amazon over with a license change. Maybe instead you could take some of your shake-down money and put it to good use by lobbying against these monopolistic conglomarates in the valley so that they can't use their overreaching power to screw you with your own code. Maybe instead, you could encourage ALL developers to start using copyleft licenses, instead of the weaker licenses everyone loves to throw on their project these days. Because those weaker licenses are somewhat to blame for this too. What good is a FOSS program if its just going to lead to more proprietary software? How does that help anyone? There's a reason most of the big tech monopolies release most of the open source code they do produce under non-copyleft licenses. Its not because they love FOSS, its so that they can pay lip service to the community and then use it with their the proprietary programs we're so concerned about them surveiling us with. Of course, the retort to all of this is "developers need to eat to, how can we make money off of copyleft?" I have two answers, one thats snarky but possibly helpful and one that's honest but possibly rude, and hopefully enlightening. The first answer is "Ask Qt." "Ask Blender." "Ask Redhat." Ask one of the many companies that do buisiness while still releasing their main software under a FOSS license. They all seem to be doing pretty well. The second answer is that I don't care how or even if you make money. Thats not the reason you release something as FOSS. Never has been, never will be. If you release software as FOSS, its because you believe that there should be a balance of power between developers and users. Its because you believe that sharing information and knowledge is the best way we can improve quality of life for ourselves and those around us. If you can't make those ideals your biggest priority even in the face of financial loss, frankly don't even bother releasing your software as FOSS. I'd rather your software be proprietary. That way I'll know to avoid it and we won't have to waste eachothers time.