Actually, you can do exactly that. Fork them.

You can’t force the people who are using Github to follow you, of course. But that’s every individual’s choice.

You think Microsoft is the only “evil corporation” among these? That’s very naive. Any hosting service will deplatform users when they can see a profit to be made from doing so.

“We” as in the conversation as a whole. You joined an ongoing thread.

So we’ve moved from “GitHub is not open source” to “GitHub has some support software for peripheral features that is not open-source?” I’m definitely failing to see the rant-worthiness of it at this point. It’s certainly not monopolistic, platforms like GitLab and Bitbucket also provide these features. And I’d bet that some of them have their own proprietary software to support these things too.

There’s quite a series of leaps of logic here.

Because Google (not Microsoft) released a project under the BSD license (an open source license) but “everyone on Lemmy” doesn’t think it’s open source, therefore a hosting site owned by Microsoft (not Google) is not “open source.”

I’m not even sure what is meant by GitHub being “open source.” It’s a hosting provider, not an actual piece of software. The site itself doesn’t have a source license. The individual repositories can have licenses, which can be whatever the user who created the repository sets it to be - including open source licenses. Do you mean GitHub Desktop? Microsoft released that under the MIT license. And you don’t need GitHub Desktop to use GitHub anyway.

Oh, that’s what you meant. How do you contribute to a project on any git host if that git host won’t let you? In what way is GitHub any different from that?

You’re not “pretty fucked”. Just use one of the many other git hosts out there. OP himself lists some of them in his rant.

Microsoft has developed many open-source projects. The view of Microsoft as some kind of anti-open-source crusader is 20 years out of date.

All of those issues would arise if you wanted to migrate an established project to Github as well.

This isn’t even a problem with historical awareness, OP knows that Github isn’t a monopoly. They listed off a bunch of alternatives in their rant. I’m really not sure what they were even complaining about.

Content warning: this is a rant from a teenager who has strong opinions.

Okay…

However, it holds a monopoly on software.

You don’t know what a “monopoly” is.

they could just go “Boop! You’re gone!” and there’s nothing I could do about it other than move forges.

Yeah, nothing you could do about it, other than moving to one of the many other git hosts. Monopoly!

And then after listing off a whole bunch of alternative git hosts…

Centralization is not bad by itself but it’s bad when there’s no other option. There just needs to be ways to contribute to code without having to use Github.

You have plenty of ways to do that, and you know that because you just listed them. Github is not a monopoly.

Also, I don’t see the concept of open source mentioned at any point in this rant.

No, I said things about AI and open source. I raised open source as part of my counter to your argument that this is “concentrating wealth.”

Here, I’ll explain in detail what’s going on.

In response to an article about Reddit licensing your content to AI trainers, capt_wolf said “it’s time to purge your account.” Presumably as a way to stop that from happening. I asked why that was a bad thing, specifically how it harmed us in any meaningful way. You came in at that point and suggested:

• It’s a scheme to further concentrate wealth
• It harms everyone but the 0.1%.

I raised open source as a counter to the “wealth concentration” point, because open source does the opposite - it spreads the wealth to any who want it. It puts these resources into the commons.

I also pointed out that I personally benefit from AI tools, so it does the opposite of harming me. As I am not part of the 0.1%, that’s a counter to your second point.

I was directly addressing all of the points you raised.

You said it concentrates wealth, but open source does the opposite of that - it allows small companies and individuals to earn money using the technology without having to pay for its use.

You said it “harms everyone but the 0.1%.” I am benefited by it, not harmed, and I am very much not part of the 0.1%.

My original question remains unanswered. “It may help someone I don’t like because they are richer than me” is a pretty weak concept of “harm.”

I draw plenty of benefit from AI tools. There are open source models that anyone can run.

Why? How does it harm you in any meaningful way?

If you’re talking about Glaze or Nightshade, those techniques are not proven to be particularly effective. Lots of people want them to work but that doesn’t make it so.

I’m sure there’ll be some little forked version of Firefox without the features you can’t abide simply turning off in the settings.

Are you sure it’s not just Baader-Meinhof phenomenon? Once you’re primed to notice a particular thing you’ll notice it more often, even if it was around equally much beforehand.

Even the AI got bored reading it.

As summarized by Bing AI:

• The author shares his experience at the Consumer Electronics Show, where he watched a keynote speech for the Rabbit R1, an AI gadget that acts as a personal assistant.
• The Rabbit R1 can create a “digital twin” of the user, which can directly utilize all of your apps so that you, the person, don’t have to.
• The author expresses concern about the lack of information on how the Rabbit will interact with these apps and how secure the user’s data will be.
• The author also discusses the trend of AI assistants like Microsoft’s Copilot, which can perform a variety of tasks, potentially replacing human effort.
• The author emphasizes that there’s nothing inherently wrong with AI technology, but expresses concern about the potential risks and implications of its misuse.

I still visit Reddit and that’s definitely been my experience - my front page diversity has gone way down, many of the subreddits I am subscribed to have basically gone silent. There’s still a few specialized ones left, and the big news ones I still read, but only in old reddit. When old Reddit is gone then so am I.

The fact that the employees were able represent their defacto power in a crisis is good

That’s all that I’m saying.

If you’ve got issues with the whole concept of hierarchical power structures or there being such a thing as “leaders”, that’s a bit beyond the scope of this particular situation.

Because it is having a good outcome, the disruption of of a monopoly.

You want bad things to happen

No, that’s entirely you assuming things about my position. I don’t want bad things to happen.

“Accelerationism” is a philosophical position. The goal is entirely what makes it accelerationism. Quit swapping words in each new comment.

Explain, then. “It should be obvious” is not an explanation.

Not wanting a small group of self-appointed gatekeepers is not the same as accelerationism.

I actually like the chaoticness, because I don’t like having one small group of people as the self-appointed and de-facto gatekeepers of AI for everyone else. This makes it clear to everyone why it’s important to control your own AI resources.

So what’s the problem?

It’s okay, though, we’ll have an AI that can do it soon enough.

Because 95% of the people that worked for him demanded it.

A wild Elon Musk rant has appeared, complaining about how people are complaining about how Elon Musk is irrelevant, in a thread that has nothing to do with Elon Musk.

I really have no idea how to take this.

You brought it up. You either had some specific reason to think it was relevant or you’re just fearmongering.

Refusing to explain that reason hints pretty strongly at the latter.

What specific part of the terms of service cover datamining? OP said “If you are fine with being datamined by software and device you paid for, more power to you champ!”, which is just a vague generic claim. If you’re going to say that the Terms of Service allows for it please actually quote the bit that does so. Otherwise this is just wild fearmongering.

Your question implies that you think there’s something specific in those terms of service that’s problematic. Care to share?

It’s basically a wrapper for Bing Chat. If anything I’m disappointed by how little it does. Possibly because I don’t have Microsoft Office, it has some integrations with that when doing searches through your data (this is a feature of Office rather than of Copilot, though). Do you have any sources indicating it’s doing more than that?

It also dies when it’s in an environment it can’t survive in. The textual medium is terrible for sarcasm, especially when you’re using it alongside people who are serious about hating on Microsoft for weird reasons. You need to mark it with an /s

If it’s a ChatGPT wrapper then its knowledge cutoff is 2021 and this is normal.

You could go to Settings -> Personalization -> Taskbar and turn the Copilot button off. Or you could install a whole new OS to accomplish that, I guess. Whichever is simpler.