Oh absolutely. I totally agree, but I’ve seen/heard of situations where talking about illegal activity has been targetted by authorities as “empowering” or “enciting” it. Silly shit, though the authorities haven’t gone full nuclear on piracy like they did 20 years ago.
It’s funny, I’ve never met anybody who’d have that kind of experience and use the word “hacker” in this meaning simultaneously.
I’m slightly too young to use “hacker” the traditional old-MIT way. Maybe only by 2-3 years. I was a stupid kid playing with linux in the mid-90’s and I hacked into a stupid municipal dialup BBS and got root, then neither did nor changed anything because it was “cool” to prove I could figure it out. Then “Hackers” came out and I ran that movie on repeat for a few weeks and then moved on to actually learning to code.
I remember exactly the opposite, people being much more acutely aware of the difference, and Stallman being much more popular than now.
There’s those of us who were avoiding Redhat for shittier distros (like Slackware back then imo) because we didn’t want to buy anyone else’s beer for us to contribute for free. Maybe we were fewer than it seemed. I was that ugy giving out Ubuntu Warty CD’s having this weird pipe-dream of the tech world all going free-as-in-beer (yeah, I know they’re a for-profit. A lot of people didn’t get that back then and just saw a better Debian). Maybe again it relates to the exact date?
Clarification? Movies about Steve Jobs excluded.
Mr. Gates started back when “hacker” didn’t mean “hacker” (as you point out). He would pick up freely-given tech early on, and was then one of the first to start crying IP complaints and asserting his ownership of his product. Wherever you stand on the opinion, Gates’ Open Letter to Hobbyists started his really terrible reputation, since many hobbyests accurately alleged he built his business on tech they were using/granting for free. I never knew the facts of the 1977 BASIC case where he was sued over ownership of BASIC and won, but then in the 80’s he notoriously started his attitude of embrace, extend, extinguish. Everything from his behavior related to DOS, his ripping off Lotus Notes, etc. One could simply say “he was a good businessman” and they’re allowed to feel that way. If you say “hey, you can have as much of my water as you want for free” and I drain your lake so you have to buy water back from me, technically what I’m doing is legal. That’s basically what many people felt Gates did.
EDIT: And I don’t have good references, but I remember some quotes from him as his reputation got bad, that the hobbyists shouldn’t have been giving software out for free anyway. That the real problem was that they should have been demanding money for their work and/or keeping their ownership. One could argue his behavior was some of what spearheaded the carefully-crafted OSS licensing in the 80’s.
In fairness, I think it’s because the tech barrier of entry went down, WAYYY down. “Free Data” is an easy sell to people who were dialing into usenet in the 90’s, and us stupid ameteur hackers who would break into systems like they were puzzles because we thought it was cool and the maximum penalty was a fine and community service (the good old days, we all did it at least once and thought we were Zero Cool… unless we thought Zero Cool was lame, whatever). A lot of the people who think IP jives well with the internet were the ones who looked at me weird when I said I had online friends circa 2000, and who couldn’t understand how I couldn’t make some party because I “had to spend Saturday hanging out on IRC for my D&D campaign”
Even more technical folks now, they just never lived what made the internet beautiful when it was smaller. Back when “FOSS” was “Free as in Beer” and fuck that Richard Stallman with his “free as in speech” bullshit. They don’t remember how this dark storm of people’s hobbies turning into other people’s IP, people like Bill Gates stealing the foundations of technology to build his empire (for all the good he does now, he was truly evil to his core).
Ok, old-fart rant over.
I feel there’s still a difference between hosting it directly vs the federated nature of the platform meaning that the content is copied so it can be served to an end user
Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. If you “federate” a server with CP for example, you are hosting CP. If it’s not brought to your attention, maybe you have a safe harbor exception (and maybe not), but if it IS brought to your attention, you are required to act on it to not be liable. And I airquote “federate” because as I learned Lemmy’s architecture, I’m not sure “federated” is the best word to describe it. When I think of federated, I think of something like an orchistrator. A tool where you are directed to the authoritative cluster for content, but not required to join in on it. In such a world, there would be three states - (1) I have a copy of this data, (2) I don’t have a copy of this data but link/index it, (3) I refuse to index this data
Lacking #2, I believe, really creates a lot of liability.
They let people resell keys “no questions asked” (it reduces their liability to not ask questions). Some percent of the resellers they host use stolen credit cards to sell at a loss, and nobody knows what percent. It’s probably depressingly high, but (likely) still <50%.
Some percent of the resellers just buys games on sale, or in a cheap country to resell to expensive countries. It’s not uncommon when a game has a plummet sale (a $70 black friday sale for $20) that thousands of copies of the game show up for $30-40 on G2A as soon as the sale ends. Those are (generally) not in any way related to stolen credit cards.
Is it really still the best IRC client in the world? I stopped IRCing 15 years ago but nobody came close back then.
It was when better sandboxing came out and the only valid complaints about javascript became invalid.
I was there. It was a good time.
Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to pass explicit judgement. His reputation is just a lot better now than it used to be, whether earned or not.