"When an online game publisher sunsets an unsuccessful client-server game, they must publish protocol docs and open source the client and server code?" Yes, why not? The bargain of copyright is that the creator gets a government-backed monopoly for a fixed term and then the work enters the public domain. That second part is just as important as the first.
Should these devices ever actually exist, it occurs to me that they are unlikely to have had much focus on security. As a result they might be quite hackable... Apropos of nothing of course.
To be clear I have tried it, can't remember what instance, but I doubt I'll be going back. There was nothing compelling to tempt any of my existing friends or contacts over from other services, there were still technical challenges if you only used a phone to access it and there was definitely a sense that if you weren't tech-savvy enough to figure these out then you shouldn't really be there anyway. It's also the only online place I've ever had a death threat for not being left-wing enough. So in general, not a winning combo for me.
I wish I'd been able to get on with Mastodon but it was always a bit too complex for easy adoption and the purity culture (both tech and social) was aggressive and exhausting. I still miss MySpace...
Happy new year Mike! Personally I'm not convinced new alternatives can scale fast enough before they're bought out or legislated into irrelevance. But I've been wrong before, many, many times...
OK, cards on the table first. I'm a song-writer / producer and I am quite strongly against the use of generative AI. Not because of copyright infringement, I've long supported Techdirt's approach that copyright needs reform and winding back to something approaching its origins, but because of the water, pollution and energy costs of AI. No-one can confidently state what these are, so we're just collectively running up an environmental credit card bill that we have no idea how to pay, for a product that doesn't need to exist. I have some concerns around where fair use for training stops and creating a competing product starts as well but they're pretty secondary. Right, that's that bit out of the way... To me, sample size of 1, the creation of fan art is not 'connection'. Connection is a two-way thing, an interaction. Most fan art is a one-way thing, "Here is my interpretation of your creation." It may be anything from appallingly bad to brilliantly realised, it may horrifically subvert the original creator's intention or beautifully expand on their vision. But it's still one way. It's not really any different to following a creator on instagram and thinking you know them personally as a result. The Disney licensing gets close to a two-way model, the studio is providing a licence to use their content but that's really just legalising something that's already happening in the one-way world. Connection happens when the artists and creators get involved as well. If a band says, "Hey we're having a remix competition, here are the stems, knock yourselves out." Or an author says, "Show me your fanfics and I'll tell you my favourites." Or a film maker says, "What storyline would you like me to look at for the next series?" And they can choose whether to accept AI into that interaction fully, partially or not at all: - "Please no AI submissions, I want to see YOUR writing." - "Feel free to use AI tools to help, but let us know when you submit your mix." - "Want to use AI to flesh out your idea? Here's a couple of tools we'd recommend." That would be using AI to increase connection. I'm really not close enough to other fields, but on the music production side of things the only headline artist I can think of who's actually embraced that approach is Grimes - but that was strictly on a 50% licenced deal. Aside from that I'm not seeing any artists actually engaging with AI-generated fan art. And until they do it's not actually connection, it's just content. I reckon.
No-one is censoring anything. What might happen is that the community decides you're a cunt and no-one values your opinion. But that's a different thing, buddy.
I don't think Tim is necessarily right in his assumption (it could result in shorter working weeks for existing staff for example), but it is not remotely the same as the lost sales fallacy.
There's a very real chance that Ellison et al. will do a Murdoch-buys-Myspace style butchering of the app and all the kids will have moved onto something else by the end of next year. There'll be nothing left but the faint sounds of brands echoing their corporate purpose into the void...
Until the courts charge some people with contempt and issue some prison time.
All those right wing freedom lovers who spent years whining about a police state whenever someone suggested maybe not selling a gun to every idiot-with-a-grievance without a background check? Surely they'll be up in arms about this? Right?
I think RFK jr and Kegsbreath are having a competition on who can kill the most innocent people. RFK thinks he's playing the long game, Hegseth is pitching for all-out war.
...nowadays should be that it's NEVER about the children.
Regulation that's good for me is good for everyone. Regulation that is bad for me must therefore be bad for everyone...
Come off it, the Telegraph may be printed on wide paper but it's content hasn't been broadsheet standard for years. It's the daily mail in a dinner jacket.
UK here, bit of local context. The BBC is a bit of a weird organisation. It's funded by a TV licence fee - an annual cost to watch any broadcast TV (or BBC streaming channels) in the UK and it's governed by a charter that is reviewed every few years. The next review is in about 12 months. The BBC has been under a sustained, strategic attack from right-wing media outlets (primary Murdoch ones but the others join in) for about the last 3 decades. There have been half-a-dozen scandals over the last few years, poor editorial judgement, failure to have adequate safeguarding, cover-up of abusive behaviour etc. Frankly Jim Davie (the Director General) should be going - he's failed to get a handle on any of this and has not managed to instil the necessary change of culture. But I doubt they'll cave to Trump - for one thing he's been waaaay too greedy. The BBC doesn't have that kind of cash, and for another he just won't have standing somewhere he can actually win the case. The BBC will grovel for political reasons, but they'll stand for legal ones. I reckon.
Extortionist is the word that comes to mind. Apparently that's a crime in some countries.
Much free. Very speech.
Gotta keep goosing those quarterly earnings!
Getting bored of asking this...
... But where are the journalists, interviewers and reporters calling this bullshit out? Who is actually challenging back on this?