If the only thing stopping them from decrypting your messages is instructions to their own employees to not allow it to be done, that is not a defense against providing access to law enforcement. They can just change those instructions at any time without anybody knowing. Just like they can just change the server software to allow it.
So, to be clear, your argument is that the freedom to deny the freedom of other people is a freedom that should be protected? How do you deal with issues like slavery and, in particular, its abolishment?
usea's argument is clearly not that but only that you can't literally think something is "not worth discussing" while you are actually discussing it.
The person who was explicitly defending non-GPL licences was rahkiin. I don't know how they'd respond to your challenge, but here is how I would:
"The freedom to deny the freedom of other people" is impossibly vague, because "the freedom of other people" can mean zillions of things. It's also confusing to talk about since we have two separate freedoms here, so let's talk about the freedom(1) to deny the freedom(2) of other people.
Suppose we put "the freedom to kill other people" in the freedom(2) slot. Most of us think that isn't a freedom people are entitled to, so the freedom(1) to deny that particular freedom(2) would be a good thing.
Suppose we put "the freedom to breathe the air" in the freedom(2) slot. Most of us think that is a freedom people are entitled to, so the freedom(1) to deny that particular freedom(2) would be a bad thing.
In the present case, what goes in the freedom(2) slot is something more complicated and less clear-cut -- it isn't a Super-Obvious Fundamental Human Right like the right to go on breathing, but it also isn't a Right To Do Very Evil Things like the right to murder.
It's something like "the freedom to read and modify the source code of a particular piece of software". We demonstrably don't presently have that freedom as regards many widely-used pieces of software; the world's legal systems pretty much unanimously agree that if you put this in the freedom(2) slot then the freedom(1) to deny it is worth having.
Why? Well, the usual arguments would be (1) that creating something gives you some rights to limit what other people do with it, and (2) that giving creators some such rights is a good thing overall because it increases the incentives for people to create nice things.
Of course you might disagree! (And, also of course, even if you agree with #1 and #2 in the abstract you might think that "intellectual property" law as currently implemented across the world is a very bad way to get #1 and #2.) But I hope your reasons are a matter of thinking carefully about the tradeoffs involved, not just of saying "yay freedom" and therefore denying every instance of "it's good for X to have the freedom(1) to deny Y's freedom(2) to do Z".
Not least because you literally can't consistently do so in every case -- if you say no one should ever have the freedom(1) to deny freedom(2) to others, whatever specific freedom(2) may be, then what you are calling for is precisely to deny that freedom(1) to others.
> No single person will ever willingly consent to having their personal photos used to benefit a money grabbing company like Meta, or any company for that matter.
I'm pretty against big money-grabbing companies as you put it, but I'm happy to license all my photos, code, and art with public domain licenses, even if it benefits those companies. Because I think it's the right thing to do. Ultimately, companies use copyright as a weapon to oppress the speech and learning of regular folk.
If some kid who's trying to learn coding sees a function I wrote, they should be able to copy it wholesale if it pleases them to do so. If somebody in school is learning to make hobby games while they're supposed to be doing homework, they should be able to take a bunch of sprites from nintendo games and make the story about spider-man if they want to. they should be able to share that game with other people, and even sell it.
If meta uses artifacts I create to train their AI, that's a small price to pay for doing what's right for people who are just trying to learn and express themselves naturally.
I've never seen such systems emerge from the team as a tool for self-empowerment. They are always foisted upon the team by managers who are trying to, ultimately, turn estimates into promises.
If a breach is so inevitable like you say, then it's negligent to store the information in the first place. They're accumulating and organizing data with the inescapable conclusion of handing it out to criminal organizations.
My experience at companies is that the vast majority of the code is not understood by anybody working there, nor even attempted to be. It sits in third party libraries that nobody audits.
That's a very bad thing, but this sounds like just more of that. Which most developers seem totally fine with.
Indeed I was once ordered to implement oauth but keep the email password reset because too many people would get locked out otherwise. And I almost locked myself out while testing.
