Also known as a random Internet asshole

Un arrêté municipal n’a pas la possibilité de définir une sanction pécunière de type amende administrative. Séparation des pouvoirs.

How

Ce n’est aucunement le cas. Un maire est un administrateur public, et ses pouvoirs sont définis précisément.

Avant que l’arrêté “saute” officiellement il est déjà nul et non avenu.

You wish it were private. Would have saved you from the embarrassment.

Vous êtes partis si loin en oubliant l’essentiel : si législation il doit y avoir sur le sujet, et quelle que soit votre opinion là-dessus, ce n’est pas dans les pouvoirs d’une mairie. Ce genre de décision ne peut être prise qu’au niveau de l’État. Vous semblez croire qu’un maire est un mini-duc qui peut éditer ses mini-lois locales…

Le référendum n’a aucune valeur légale, c’est juste un élément de propagande. Au final c’est quand même juste un arrêté municipal, et les arrêtés municipaux ne peuvent pas décider de tout.

Je suis étonnée qu’on en débatte comme si c’était raisonnable qu’un maire pense avoir à ce point un droit de contrôle sur ce que font ses habitant·es. Ce n’est pas de ses prérogatives et c’est, comme souvent, un exemple de la façon dont les arrêtés municipaux sont pris sans aucune considération pour la loi (qui encadre ce que les arrêtés municipaux peuvent, ou ne peuvent pas, faire).

Peu de surprise que ça émane d’un maire LR. Prochaine étape, il vous dira quel compte suivre, quels réseaux utiliser, quels livres acheter ?

I personally think it’s a very bad idea and politics will catch up on you eventually. But whatever floats your boat.

5-7 trillion and they’ll still end up stealing data from all over the internet.

Quick, everyone go to the new hype Nazi bar! (Well, not so hype anymore)

Sure, that’s the reason. I believe that.

If instances don’t want to federate with some or all other instances, that is their choice, and that’s on purpose. Some just want to have smaller communities, stronger moderation, and sometimes be entirely private.

If you’re looking for instances that federate with most, you should choose yours accordingly. And I think you won’t have an issue with that, because most popular instances chose to go this route.

Because that’s not really how laws work. You don’t add laws over laws to just state the same thing again. Legal books are already fat enough.

Yes, most image search engines are also unlawful. Google knows that firsthand. It’s not because it exists that it’s legal? You seem to believe that.

It’s almost like if big tech corporations don’t care about laws, and the problem is elsewhere?

I don’t know why everybody pretends we need to come up with a bunch of new laws to protect artists and copyright against “AI”. The problem isn’t AI. The problem is data scraping.

An example: Apple’s iOS allows you to record your own voice in order to make it a full speech synthesis, that you can use within the system. It’s currently tooted as an accessibility feature (like, if you have a disability preventing you from speaking out loud all of the time, you can use your phone to speak on your behalf, with your own custom voice). In this case, you provide the data, and the AI processes it on-device over night. Simple. We could also think about an artist making a database of their own works in order to try and come up with new ideas with quick prompts, in their own style.

However, right now, a lot of companies are building huge databases by scraping data from everywhere without consent from the artists that, most of the time, don’t even know their work was scraped. And they even dare to advise that publicly, pretend they have a right to do that, sell those services. That’s stealing of intellectual property, always has been, always will be. You don’t need new laws to get it right. You might need better courts in order to enforce it, depending on which country you live in.

There’s legal use of AI, and unlawful use of AI. If you use what belongs to you and use the computer as a generative tool to make more things out of it: AI good. If you take from others what don’t belong to you in order to generate stuff based on it: AI bad. Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

Can’t go on the Internet, can’t go in public restrooms… Land of freedom.

“You can force cooperation”. Wow. A true fighter for free software, you are. Sure, let’s use that as a new catchphrase.

(But if it was to be actually enforced on any actually decentralized network — a concept that you still have a hard time understanding, apparently — there would be forks up the ass from such an autoritative move. Just go on Reddit, that’s what you’re looking for.)

Goes to show that bitcoin bros like to spam around!

Jokes aaide: I think you don’t quite get the point. The issue is not “are there enough mods?” but really “what moderation rules do you want to enforce?”. You can’t force collaboration on instances that have different views and rules on moderation because they will disagree on key elements. Some instances are very open to all kind of content, even offensive, and will enforce close-to-no moderation; others will have a very active moderation to protect their users against hate speech, for instance. You don’t solve anything by thinking those can work together. There are separate instances for a good reason, and it’s ought to stay like that.

If they were identical they wouldn’t be separated. Everyone seems to fail to understand that the same « topic » doesn’t make automatically the same « community ». The goals and rules of instances are different.