> forcing any and all electronic platforms to be liable for copyright infringements of user-uploaded content, if they have not taken “appropriate and reasonable measures” from preventing such uploads. [ . . . ] forcing electronic platforms to be liable to multimillion lawsuits if they don’t use automatic censorship machines.
This means making things like Google's broken Content-ID mandatory. CID causes no end of troubles for small independent publishers and for fair use.
> Worse still, there’s already — already! — steps taken to expand this machine censorship (let’s call a spade a spade, here) to also include unwanted political opinions, under the label of “terrorist propaganda” — which has become so diluted today that it basically means “anything the government doesn’t particularly like”.
> a mandatory linking fee (!!) which is the other horrible thing about this “small revision”. Yes, this is the “Google Tax” that was tried with disastrous results in Spain.
> There are several GitHub alternatives, but for the most part they’re basically GitHub rip-offs. Unlike GitLab, Gogs/Gitea, BitBucket; I don’t see the GitHub UX as the pinnacle of project hosting - there are many design choices (notably pull requests) which I think have lots of room for improvement. sr.ht instead embraces git more closely, for example building on top of email rather than instead of email.
> GitHub optimizes for the end-user and the drive-by contributor. sr.ht optimizes for the maintainers and core contributors instead. We have patch queues and ticket queues which you can set up automated filters in or manually curate, and are reusable for projects on external platforms.
@marsxyz but they're the _same_, with different players. Not even sure GitLab is profitable either, so it could get sold easily like GitHub when it ends up bleeding too much money. there's nothing different besides the CE license.