JackGreenEarth
@alyaza I am conflicted on this. While I feel like it's probably the right thing to do as Meta would just destroy the fediverse if it entered it, it makes me uncomfortable that this network that is supposed to be so open and connected with each other can be so easily and glibly made into what is essentially yet another privately controlled website.
@IHangBananas I am pro free speech, and I would consider myself mainly left wing. But I resonate with the quote 'I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' People have a right to read what they want, and they can block people for themselves to do that, but I think platforms have a moral, if not legal, obligation to host content regardless of whether they agree with it.
@iAmTheTot *Things that the mainstream perceives as shitty. Imagine if slaves were still illegal, and anyone campaigning for their abolishment was not allowed to speak on social media. See why you need free speech now?
And you might say 'That's different, slavery is bad and advocating for its abolishment is good, but advocating for Donald Trump is bad', but that is the point.
'I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
@tal Or it could make an API call to a server, the way ChatGPT does today. Unfortunately, that will mean the player has to be online to use the text generation, but the tech of it isn't what we're discussing anyway. We're talking about the ethics of it, not the means.
It's like we're talking about whether robbing a bank is OK or not, and then someone goes and talks about how hard it is to rob a bank. It's a non sequiter, it's not what we're talking about.
@birlocke_ @lengsel @mack123 @Ronno