zlacker

>>hugoda+(OP)
We really need some law to stop "you have been banned and we won't even tell you actual reason for it", it's become a plague, made worse with automated systems giving out a ban

>>Punchy+4C1
Do we though? It’s an important question about liberty - at what point does a business become so large that it’s not allowed to decide who gets to use it?

There was a famous case here in the UK of a cake shop that banned a customer for wanting a cake made for a gay wedding because it was contra the owners’ religious beliefs. That was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court IIRC.

>>urband+PK1
While I still object to them having a say in that matter (next thing is; we don’t serve darkies) - that is different. There are hundreds of shops to get that cake from.

But Anthropic and “Open”AI especially are firing on all bullshit cylinders to convince the world that they are responsible, trustable, but also that they alone can do frontier-level AI, and they don’t like sharing anything.

You don’t get to both insert yourself as an indispensable base-layer tool for knowledge-work AND to arbitrarily deny access based on your beliefs (or that of the mentally crippled administration of your host country).

You can try, but this is having your cake and eating it too territory, it will backfire.

>>pseudo+nQ1
The Catholic Church has been doing this for hundreds of years. I'm sure it'll eventually backfire on them, but I doubt any of us will still be alive for that.

>>fragme+8R1
Atheism has never been more popular. It has backfired.