Who's gonna ban it? The government?

Anarchists should fight against all oppression, including religious oppression. But any religion, spiritual community, or other related sort of thing, if they aren't oppressing anyone (and I figure "not oppressing anyone" is basically what you meant when you stuck "voluntary" in your post body), why TF would you go and make it your business what they do?

Beyond that, one could argue that without being able to oppress people, religions would die out over time as people wake up to what they really are. To the extent that that happens, great. But I do think there's something deep in humans that has spiritual sort of leanings. Whether what remains once oppressive religions are gone will qualify as a "religion" or be more of a set of secular spiritual practices or some such really depends more on your definition of "religion" than anything else.

What do you think of terms like "fictionkin" and "copinglink"? (Have you heard of those terms?)

Criti-hype intensifies

Mine occupied itself exploring mazes of its own construction.

"By not drinking antifreeze, you've just re-sensitized yourself so any antifreeze you drink will be impossible to metabolize."

Fortunately I'm accepting applications for a new sleep paralysis demon.

"...and her whimsical fursona (right) Barky."

I honestly wouldn't put it past Trump to start claiming he grew algae in the reflecting pool on purpose to improve the world's supply of oxygen. While also claiming Obama sabotaged it to make it turn green, of course.

And a whole bunch of Windows users clearly thinking way more about Linux than they care to admit.

I'm probably the most anti-AI person I know, but I agree discourse around how "AI is theft" is a bit shallow.

Copyright is often erroneously conflated with plagiarism. While the two do sometimes coincide, they're very different concerns.

I, myself, believe copyright is so broken we'd be better off throwing it away. (The only thing I believe I'd miss about copyright if I woke up tomorrow and it didn't exist would be copyleft.) But I do deeply believe in a right to attribution. I don't think AI is theft. I think it's plagiarism.

And I believe that listing the names of all those whose works were included in training data for a model would still be a great disservice to the artists buried tens of millions of names deep right after some dumbass "NFT artist". Meanwhile, asking an LLM or image generating model which training data was involved in generating one particular piece of output it produced is futile the same way as asking a stage strongman which rep at the gym allowed them to lift that car.

And if someone objected that giving what I would consider "sufficient credit" to artists/authors/whoever would make AI models completely infeasible, then my response would be "that's exactly my point." If it can't exist without taking advantage of huge numbers of people without their consent, then it shouldn't exist at all.

Finally, one more point I want to make is that if AI didn't make billionaires a huge amount of money, the legal system would have put a stop to the mass scraping of training data and made a very visible example of whoever undertook to do mass scraping in the first long ago. (Never forget what they did to Aaron Swartz for scraping on a vastly smaller scale than OpenAI or Twitter or whoever did to make their LLM models.) As terrible as it is having to deal with the shitty IP laws we have, the greater injustice is that the laws (IP and otherwise) only apply when billionaires want them to.

How so? Like, is the content super gritty in South Korea? Is the EULA super fucked-up there? Does it cost an arm and a leg? Is it unavailable without a VPN? Something else entirely? All of the above?

All the more reason to make sure it goes super viral everywhere.

made us more vulnerable to threats

How so?

Is there any particular piece of information that he revealed which could have been used by anyone really to... I dunno... bypass defenses or take advantage of people or whatever in some a way that could actually hurt people?

I dunno. Everything I've heard is that everything that he leaked that has been released was super innocuous militarily (not that the military is a bunch of knights in shining armor or anything) or national-defense-wise. It is (or at least should be) very embarrassing to the U.S. "intelligence apparatus". And it's clearly good reason to believe that Uncle Sam clearly doesn't have our (American's) best interests at heart. But what could possibly have even hypothetically been used to cause any harm?

(And, I don't know, maybe you know something I'm unaware of, but it really seemed like he went out of his way to avoid any harm to anything but the reputation of the intelligence industrial complex. And maybe a few presidents.)

The most surefire way to piss off a Trump supporter is just to be a decent human being in their vicinity. Or on the internet. Or in movies, TV, or video games. Or in complete private.

Yeah, this isn't the only community that a slop banner, and I hate that problem too. (The other one I know of off the top of my head is !show_and_tell@programming.dev .)

Just for the record, I'm down with the political commentary, just not the slop.

You might dig James Boyle. I haven't read "The Public Domain" (book by him) yet, but I have read the IP Caselaw textbook he coauthored. It's really meant to be a textbook for law students, not a treatise on anticapitalism, so it mostly doesn't go into the kind of stuff in this article, but it does have excerpts from The Public Domain (which is a lot more about the kind of stuff in Nesbitt's blog post) throughout and the final chapter in particular is very much on that topic.

Ah. That word is "gravity".

Standup comedy is all about personality and "vibes". What they're drinking affects the audience's perception of both. It helps to set expectations. Their drink is often part of the performance. (Mind you, comics don't always have beverages. I watched a comedy routine today and I'm pretty sure he didn't have a beverage at all. Not even water.)