Let’s just leave it here. I don’t think we’re going to find common ground.

I don’t believe open source creators will stop big tech from using them because they are open source and it’s antithetical to its creation.

There is already a precedence for this - Russians have been blocked by the open source community from contributing to multiple projects including the Linux kernel, Github and numerous smaller projects that actively also campaign for Ukraine.

Open source isn’t just about giving code away so everyone can use it no matter what, it’s a set of values and principles. If open source is used for genocide, generating CSAM, surveillance tech, etc… Then limits need to be enforced by the creators.

They must be purged of all evil and nefarious intention.

How will you… achieve this exactly? Surely the better path to the future is to achieve consensus through a mutually agreed set of rules. You can’t change what people really are inside, and if you try to you’re just gonna create bigger problems. My 2c.

Government might have a stranglehold on physical infrastructure and gate keep our human needs like food and shelter, but in their hubris and obsession with wealth extraction they forgot that all of us have knowledge, skills and capacity that they do not. This is the spirit that worker and union movements were based on in the late 20th century and I believe we are headed for something similar in tech and perhaps other expertise led jobs like law, medicine and science.

Corporations are getting increasingly incompetent, it’s easy to foresee down the line large corporations having to broker deals with the equivalent of guilds and to apply for licensing in order to use technology, i.e. if you are a sociopath you don’t get to use social media automation technology. Kinda like the principle that people on drugs aren’t allowed to operate heavy machinery. Perhaps the open source community will even ban large tech from using open source unless certain conditions are met, beyond just “don’t slam our servers” but into making sure there’s a match on values and legal compliances.

Happy to hear your thoughts on the matter. I’ve been mulling how to fight back for a while and this is what I’ve come up with. I highly doubt it will “get done” in my lifetime, but I also believe any real meaningful change does take an eternity and I’m happy to be one of the many metaphorical birds striking the diamond mountain of capitalism.

Australian here. It’s hard to say how anyone feels because the media and major social media have been astro turfed so hard. But it’s plain to see to everyone that neither side of politics down under is interested in changing the status quo.

I get the sense people are disillusioned and seeing through all the smoke and mirrors from all sides of politics, but it’s just leading to cynicism and disengagement rather than alternative options.

I have been wondering if maybe the path to a Star Trek future lies in peacefully tolerating and co-operating with these “authorities” as they fade into irrelevance. We can build new systems of governance peacefully, slowly and meaningfully.

I’ve submitted PRs and patches to well known projects like Drupal, three.js and Wordpress. Some of them even get merged lol… Also if I experience a problem and find an open issue I’ll add my 2c if I think it’s useful. To be honest I think in open source participating in issue comments and lodging quality tickets is as important as writing the code side of things. I have my own open source projects and thoroughly document information I think could be useful for others.

I promote FOSS in my personal and professional life where I can, and try my best to practise what I preach. Recently managed to convinced my financial counsellor from local government to look into LibreOffice which I’m quite chuffed with. They didn’t even know free software existed and are excited to tell others small businesses about using it to save money.

I think you have done a good job arguing the facts but you missed intent and context, which I believe are vital to differentiating between AI copyright theft and meme copyright theft.

For one thing, companies aren’t replacing living artists with memes - but they do intend to replace people with AI. When thousands of hard working people have dedicated their lives to developing a skill and craft, it’s atrocious that someone can just steal their work with the excuse that “AI needs it”.

Memes are likely to fall under “fair sure” given they are purely created to get a giggle out of someone, not to create financial gain. Sure there are some very popular meme sites and they should be held to account for the money they earn publishing copyrighted works that memes are made from…

Personally I would be fine with LLM AI if the underlying dataset is properly authorised and paid for. It’s disgusting that the largest companies on Earth are now hammering the world wide web hoping to feed their personal Galactuses with enough data to create some shitty new product. As if the corporate and business communities parasitic relationship with the open source world leading up to AI wasn’t bad enough!

I think the issue isn’t with “Digital ID” per se, but rather with another issue the article touches on which is how people end up lost as data in a vast system.

In Australia, we’ve had ongoing class action lawsuits and scandals relating to our welfare system because past governments implemented aggressive (and illegal) rules that cut payments early and even made up enormous fake debts which drove some people to suicide.

So far no criminal charges have been laid on the people who came up with these cruel ideas.