As others have pointed out, I think this might be a slippery slope. I like the idea, but I think there will be situations where being the arbiter of what is considered acceptable/unacceptable will be very difficult to justify.
Say, for example, that you've written some code, and for some reason, the resistance movement against a vile dictatorship needs to use the code you wrote. The use of it, will also mean people will be harmed/killed, but so will not allowing them to use it. What standards/guidelines would you have to use, to make it acceptable to waive the license restrictions on the software in that case?
"The Damn. Chronic" by DJ Critical Hype - Dre's beats meets Kendrick's flow. Excellently executed. https:/
The Profile Engine has now been donated to the Internet Archive (31st March 2018)
Knowledge is power and all the power is concentrated in the hands of a malevolent force - corporate Facebook.
We sued Facebook, fought hard in a David and Goliath battle and won a good settlement. One day, maybe we'll have time to tell the whole story - you'd be utterly shocked what goes on inside Facebook - what you've already heard is just the tip of the iceberg. If you have a Facebook account, we strongly recommend that you delete it completely, without delay. Learn more about Facebook
We are freely and lawfully transferring this database to the Internet Archive (archive.org) as they have a long track record as a suitable, responsible long term custodian and we have the legal right to do so.
Making this data freely available and preserving it serves many purposes. Here are a few:
* Helping to reunite old friends with powerful search tools (Facebook don't provide powerful search tools because if you have to search through hundreds of pages of profiles then you view more ads than if the tools take you straight to who you want).
* Helping you to find and meet new people with common interests
* Exposing the interests and group memberships of politicians and public figures (What did they really like ten years ago before they were famous?)
* This snapshot of the early days of social networking will be invaluable to Genealogists, Social Historians and perhaps even Archaeologists in ten, fifty or even 1000 years time.
* Most importantly, this will break Facebook's monopoly over social data. People chose to make this data free and public, yet Facebook still charge for it. Not any more!
I'm not sure what to make of this. Terrible move or great move, and for who? Are these really the reasons they donated the content to archive.org?
"Juggling irreverence and sincerity, HoMu seeks to subvert the increasingly impersonal, market-driven art world and expose the sellout of cultural institutions to commerce, cronyism, real estate, and star architects."
Entrance to High Line Park on W20th street., Manhattan, New York, summer 2010.
Is now a good time to remind everyone of alternative social networks? It doesn't hurt to take a look around, and see what kind of community you could build if you were using another platform for your social life online.
I've been eyeing https:/
As a major survey lead by GitHub supports (and comes as little surprise), the Free Software community is mostly white, male, cisgendered, financially well off, formally educated, able-bodied, straight, English speakers and citizens of Global North countries.
This means that the same groups of people designing and building proprietary software are also building Free Software. It means that despite its open licensing, the Free Software movement maintains the status quo of white supremacy, patriarchy and capitalism.
For Free Software to truly be free - to be free for anyone to build and use, we need to radically restructure our projects. It means building diverse communities where we are accountable to one another.