Facebook comes so close to actually having its models having an open license. They just need to make a small adjustment to get there. Hoping they will.

I don't watch awards shows either; would rather have the "don't talk about irrelevant personal topics" line established broadly so it covers things I care about.

I don't see Biden as a bad president. Boring perhaps, but presidents should be boring.

There's nothing wrong with keeping things on-topic. If I go to an event on knitting and somebody uses the podium to instead go on about Kurdistan, they should shut up and go away.

It's not racist/sexist/antisemitic/whatever to simply want to not have political protest shoved into every domain of life.

That said, it's way better to be upfront about it. Last-minute changes to a speech that surprise the speaker are awful. They should've been upfront about it and if he didn't like the policy, he could leave. Tell him upfront that if he goes on a rant his mic will be cut.

Nah, Trump really is that bad, but we don't need to talk about it all the time in every venue.

Avoiding confusion with names is a broadly accepted goal for a lot of things in society. LLMs don't actually understand things and are not going to produce content in ways that people may be morally and perhaps legally obliged to do.

Licenses should not get into politics this way. The reputational damage to Redhat from their bad choices is sufficient to shape behaviour (and failing that, usage) in the long term.

That clause at least makes the software clearly not opensource, and it's important to avoid and discourage clauses like that.

I think the confusing/bad thing would be if they insert clauses without changing the name of the license.

If they use a new name and copy some verbiage, that should be fine.

Wondering why we're seeing tech journalists like this who write as if they're trying out to play Daria in a movie, or if they've watched too much Buffy.

I am aware that it's a highly regulated space. I said that I'm open to it to lay out some principles (and make it clear I'm not coming at it from some kind of market fundamentalist angle), not because I'm unaware.

FWIW, as one of the earlier posters in this chain, I am open to imposing a universal service obligation of some sort, if we know what we want from it and think it could work.

I'm wary of having that extend to bizarrely remote areas - the US is gigantic and expecting fast internet in some small town in north dakota is unreasonable. Plus there may be a good reason to either let defaults encourage or to have an explicit policy aiming to pull people from sufficiently remote cities inwards towards at least a reasonable distance from cities. If you're not within 50 miles of a big city, expect slow internet. Move closer to fix it, where a lot of other services get easier too.

(I assume you actually have an easemeent/encumberance on your deed, which is probably not incompatible with whatever "true free market" might mean)

It's usually next to impossible to find a principled distinction between

"your acts are discriminating based on case"
vs
"your acts are discriminating based on factors that are highly correlated with race"

The latter is not morally blameworthy; if there's a chain of
A) "poor people are often a certain ethnicity"
B) "poor people often live in areas with worse infrastructure"
C) "areas with worse infrastructure often have higher prices to cost-recover operations costs there"

then there's going to be a lot of fruitless investigation to go looking for racist intent. That will make a lot of noise, probably give lawyers a lot to do, and maybe raise some fuss for communities that will make them think their pols are doing something for them, but it's not fixable on that basis.

ICANN should've insisted on it. Would not have even involved governments.