12 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
  2. Mar 2021
    1. Lori Morimoto, a fandom academic who was involved in the earlier discussion, didn’t mince words about the inherent hypocrisy of the controversy around STWW. “The discussions of the fic were absolutely riddled with people saying they wished you could block and/or ban certain users and fics on AO3 altogether because this is obnoxious,” she wrote to me in an email, “and nowhere (that I can see) is there anyone chiming in to say, ‘BUT FREE SPEECH!!!’” Morimoto continued: But when people suggest the same thing based on racist works and users, suddenly everything is about freedom of speech and how banning is bad. When it’s about racism, every apologist under the sun puts in an appearance to fight for our rights to be racist assholes, but if it’s about making the reading experience less enjoyable (which is basically what this is — it’s obnoxious, but not particularly harmful except to other works’ ability to be seen), then suddenly our overwhelming concern with free speech seems to just disappear in a poof of nothingness.

      This is an interesting example of people papering around allowing racism in favor of free speech.

  3. Feb 2021
  4. www.kickstarter.com www.kickstarter.com
    1. The author will offer presentation/game sessions on Tabletopia, in French and English. In addition, the game will be freely available for players on Tabletopia as soon as the written rules are available.
    1. What is the opposite of free content?

      The opposite of free/open-source software is proprietary software or non-free software (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software).

      So should we call the opposite of free content "non-free content"? Or "proprietary content"?

      Seems likes either would be fine.

      Looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content prefers the term "non-free content".

      Couldn't find anyone contrasting these 2 terms (like I could no doubt find for software):

      Not to be confused with:

      • paid content ... just like:
      • free content should not be confused with gratis content (?)
      • free software should not be confused with freeware
    2. A free cultural work (free content) is, according to the definition of Free Cultural Works, one that has no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to: use the content and benefit from using it, study the content and apply what is learned, make and distribute copies of the content, change and improve the content and distribute these derivative works.
    3. A free cultural work (free content) is, according to the definition of Free Cultural Works, one that has no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to:
    4. A free content, libre content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, work of art, or other creative content that meets the definition of a free cultural work.
    1. The Definition of Free Cultural Works is a definition of free content from 2006. The project evaluates and recommends compatible free content licenses.
  5. Jun 2020
    1. Just as journalists should be able to write about anything they want, comedians should be able to do the same and tell jokes about anything they please

      where's the line though? every output generates a feedback loop with the hivemind, turning into input to ourselves with our cracking, overwhelmed, filters

      it's unrealistic to wish everyone to see jokes are jokes, to rely on journalists to generate unbiased facts, and politicians as self serving leeches, err that's my bias speaking

  6. Oct 2018
    1. "I am really pleased to see different sites deciding not to privilege aggressors' speech over their targets'," Phillips said. "That tends to be the default position in so many online 'free speech' debates which suggest that if you restrict aggressors' speech, you're doing a disservice to America—a position that doesn't take into account the fact that antagonistic speech infringes on the speech of those who are silenced by that kind of abuse."