Five @ Five @beehaw.org

[Five@slrpnk.net](https://slrpnk.net/u/Five)

---

Read more

Posts

146

Comments

104

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm disappointed by your condescending tone. I can see we're talking past each other, and I'm happy to end this conversation here.

Feminist Frequency survived both GamerGate and a Trump presidency. That's a pretty long time when measured in hate-years.

Vox did an interview with David Graeber about this back in 2019.

Why do you assume because I listed the most prominent example of GOSH's censorship, that it was the only one? GOSH also litigated against Canadian author J. E. Somma. In both cases, GOSH settled out of court, and in both cases GOSH enforced a lack of transparency over the settlement as part of the terms. The point of these examples is to demonstrate that GOSH went beyond the bounds of mere royalty collector when they saw the chance, not to demonstrate chilling effect.

Chilling effect is not about the books that survived the gauntlet of publication to make it to the litigation stage; it's about all the ideas that never had a chance to blossom because the threat of copyright enforcement nipped them in the bud. Part of what makes this kind of corporate theft so insidious is that it is impossible to count the works it prevented from existing, or judge the social good they would have done.

I downloaded a cupholder for my pentium II off the internet once.

Are you saying that ALL royalties for derivative works/use of IP are an abridgement of free speech in your view?

I do believe copyright, its continued extensions in favor of rights-holders, and associated attacks on the fair use doctrine are abridgements of free speech. I also believe each addition of complexity to copyright law is a gift to copyright law firms and the consolidated publishing corporations who can easily afford to employ them, as well as an attack on small publishers and authors to whom employing solicitors and barristers is an onerous burden. But that's not what I'm arguing here.

I'm saying that granting eternal royalties from Peter Pan to GOSH creates a monetary disincentive for anyone but GOSH to publish derivative Peter Pan works. This creates a chilling effect on the republication of Barrie works and re-use of Peter Pan characters, and is worthy of outrage. This is similar in effect to the intractable libel laws that financially disincentivize publishing negative news about powerful figures and institutions in Britain, which is even more outrageous. I'm also saying that the special copyright status of Peter Pan and larger problems like the libel law situation are evidence of the same underlying issue: Britain's relative disinterest in protecting free speech.

A lot of these people are small operators; most don't have storefronts, some sell online, and a few through farmers' markets.

This is part of a movement astroturfed by Gab and Truth Social to create a market for goods and services that caters to trumpist producers and consumers. None of these businesses are capable of growing past their trumpist market. When they make enough capital to get noticed by journalists, their growth is going to crater like MyPillow due to the political backlash.

Here's an example vendor. She's going to be making overpriced unhygienic peanut butter in her kitchen for less than minimum wage and taking advantage of her children's free labor until they all burn out. If by some miracle she got the capital to buy the machines needed to make peanut butter to USDA standards and at scale, a proper boycott of her distributors would bring it all down.

They're rubes, offering their depressed labor to their cult leaders in order to take a small chip out of a corporation's bottom line. The Budweiser boycott is a great example of this - when a culture war exercise got out of hand, Republican thought leaders shut it down to avoid hurting one of their major donors. They make them think they're going to build a thriving business, but the masters will throw them aside if the corporations pay the appropriate bribes.

Thank you continuing this dialogue; I saw your bio, and though we disagree on this particular issue, I think we have a lot in common, and I appreciate your participation here.

Neither GOSH nor the government control who can create derivative works.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. They used their position to selectively control publication of works they didn't approve. That's clearly censorship.

But even if they only collected royalties, it would still be a free speech issue. Selectively assigning monetary costs to certain speech is an abridgement of free speech, for the same reason SLAPP lawsuits are a free speech issue.

I think a solution where the community gets some kind of codified constitution is a good one, but it requires both a knowledge of organizational law and a understanding of what makes the community great. If things get nailed down too soon, or get something wrong, it could really mess BeeHaw up. Maybe it's a good long term goal.

I do wish people would not use start-up terminology like 'runway' - it's a aviation metaphor, and implies an eventual 'take off' which is usually the point at which a start-up goes public or is sold by the capital investment firm to take their sky-high profits.

I'd bee a lot less if they kept federation. They have good mod and admin instincts.

They don’t work. It’s total bunk.

I'll go one further - they can never work. AI is trained using a system where an artist system generates art, and a gatekeeper system gives a confidence rating of how it looks human. The artist system goes through a training process until it can consistently fool the gatekeeper system. If there was a system that existed that could identify currently generated AI art, it would become the new gatekeeper system, and the artist system would only get better.

Copyright isn't registered anymore, it's granted on creation in almost all jurisdictions that matter. It's not like there's documentation beyond the published work.

Maybe a better framing would be "Rich would rather censor children's story than pay for children's hospital" - its understandable to not feel outrage over this based on all the worse things that are going on in the world, but that doesn't mean it's not deserving of outrage. I don't think this is a case of perfect being the enemy of good, but rather the shock doctrine aspect of disaster capitalism; it's difficult to gather sympathy for the principle of free speech when children are literally dying.

It's important to look at this from a principled perspective; though isolated the Peter Pan, the case enshrines in law that what can be published can be restricted if there's a sufficiently sympathetic non-sequitur issue. This isn't even the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" justification that was used to imprison anarchists for telling the truth about WWI, where the justification is related to the effect of the speech. Peter Pan stories have no natural connection to children's health, but allowing sentimental framing to trump principled proceedure perpetuates a lack of care in British society for the principle of free speech. It's a slippery slope that has been borne out in the ways censorship of journalism harm modern British society much more than ~1.5M yearly funding for a children's hospital can justify.

It's more than "Children deserve hospitals and stories too" - British children deserve hospitals and better government, stronger journalism, and protection from BBC and religious pedophiles too.

Good summary!

This makes it very different indeed.

Is it though? I'd frame it as "government robs children of new Peter Pan stories in order to pay for childrens' hospital" -- it's like those 'feel-good' stories in the news about children laboring at lemonade stands to raise funds for their mother's cancer treatment. It's easy to forget that these are scenarios with only bleak options because of the unstated premise that the rich will never pay their share.

I love this song.

All hail the Pirate Queen of Science!

Admin post from Kolektiva:

🚨 Kolektiva.social SECURITY ALERT 🚨

This is an alert for Kolektiva.social users. Please read this post in its entirety!

In mid-May 2023, the home of one of Kolektiva.social's admins was raided, and all their electronics were seized by the FBI. The raid was part of an investigation into a local protest. Kolektiva was neither a subject nor target of this investigation. Today, that admin was charged in relation to their alleged participation in this protest.

Unfortunately, at the time of the raid, our admin was troubleshooting an issue and working with a backup copy of the Kolektiva.social database. This backup, dated from the first week of May 2023, was in an unencrypted state when the raid occurred and it was seized, along with everything else.

The database is the heart of a Mastodon server. A database copy such as the one seized may include any of the following user data, in this case up to date as of early May 2023:

• User account information like the e-mail address associated with your account, your followers and follows, etc.
• All your posts: public, unlisted, followers-only, and direct ("DMs").
• Possibly IP addresses associated with your account - IP addresses on Kolektiva.social are logged for 3 days and then deleted, so IP addresses from any logins in the 3 days prior to the database backup date would be included.
• A hashed ("encrypted") version of your password.

🚨 👉 As a precaution we highly recommend that all users on Kolektiva.social change their password immediately to a new, unique, and strong password.

We sincerely apologize to all our users and regret this breach. In hindsight, it was obviously a mistake to leave a copy of the database in an unencrypted state. Unfortunately, what would otherwise have been a small mistake happened to coincide with a raid, due to bad luck and spectacularly bad timing.

We understand that our users and other people on the Fediverse will have a lot of questions. We will try to answer them as best we can, but please be patient and bear in mind that we may be overwhelmed with messages, and may be delayed in responding or unable to provide answers to certain questions for legal or technical reasons. As a security culture reminder, it can be extremely harmful to the individuals charged and to our community to openly speculate on the Internet about alleged criminal activity or about what law enforcement may be able to do with seized data. Our present awareness is that the seized Kolektiva data is unrelated to the federal investigation and prosecution and we are exploring legal avenues to have the seized data returned and copies destroyed.

Thank you for your understanding and solidarity :black_sparkling_heart:

👇 Please see our replies to this post for additional information (1/?) 👇

Related: AFL-CIO strike map

Is that what it seems to you? I don't see that statement in any of my replies to you. And yet I keep correcting your false readings of my statements with further explanation. Are you trolling me?