beyond

This

I've been very outspoken about my non-belief in intellectual property; I don't think reading information or making a copy of it is stealing it. On the flipside, these bots are effectively performing a denial-of-service attack on public infrastructure, wasting computing resources, bandwidth, and time that is finite. The internet is for humans first and bots second; I don't care about bots so much as long as they are well-behaved, which these are not.

My own instance went under several weeks back, then I installed Anubis and suddenly it's usable again.

Intellectual property is imaginary and making a copy of something isn't stealing it. In contrast, Disney actually has contributed to something which could more easily be likened to theft - namely, strangling of the public domain (after helping itself generously to public domain stories and characters).

I don't like Midjourney as it's a proprietary service-as-a-software-substitute, but Disney actually is the greater evil here. It's probably worth noting that Disney didn't actually create the vast majority of characters at issue here.

Pidgin is still around, and you can even use discord with it (no voice, mind you).

I would like to bring the multi-platform client back.

open source, but not free

Free here means free-as-in-freedom. The free software definition and open source definition are almost identical, there are very few apps that are only one or the other.

It's the free software movement, though - the four freedoms are literally the cornerstone of the movement. They're not simply a "nice to have" they're the bare minimum of what we should ask for. If we promote non-free "alternatives" we are saying that these basic freedoms are not an expectation, but are optional and negotiable - we are moving the message away from the four freedoms and towards "evil" proprietary applications, while making exceptions for the "lesser evil" ones.

When I say Obsidian is non-free I am not saying Obsidian is evil or you are not allowed to use it. As non-free apps go Obsidian is probably one of the least-worst, as you and many others point out it is just a markdown editor so there is no vendor lock in or weird proprietary format. I am simply saying, this is a movement focused on "the four freedoms" and Obsidian does not meet those four very basic criteria.

Proprietary software is proprietary no matter how "nice" it is. It should not be advertised in FOSS communities and falsely presenting it as "FOSS adjacent" is harmful to the movement IMO.

There are many places so called "good proprietary apps" can be promoted and discussed.

Plenty of people who (I assume) are smarter than Trump don't understand that FOSS refers to freedom, not price. It's not a very good term and I don't like how widely used it is now.

The one that says that Android is Linux therefore every Android device is a Linux phone (or tablet, etc).

This is often dismissed as a technicality but as every thread on so-called "mobile Linux" demonstrates, so-called "Linux phones" are judged basically on how well they can run Android crapware... just as "desktop Linux" is more or less judged solely on how well it can run Windows apps. Unlike Windows, however, Android is open source(-ish) and already a Linux operating system.

Most people who want to "switch to Linux" don't actually care about Linux, they just want Windows that doesn't suck. I imagine most people who want "mobile Linux" similarly want a non-sucky Android... which actually exists, unlike Windows.

If what you want is "Mobile Linux that can run Android apps" go install GrapheneOS or LineageOS or whatever.

This is not so much an "ActivityPub problem" as it is just how things work when you move something from point A to point B. You can't unsend an email (or physical mail) or untell a secret.

The idea that you can just delete something on a whim is an illusion created by the centralized silo networks, and it's not even true those cases as it's generally a soft delete, and archived by other means anyway.

A human using a browser feature/extension you personally disapprove of does not make them a bot. Once your content is inside my browser I have the right to disrespect it as I see fit.

Not that I see much value in "AI summaries" of course - but this feels very much like the "adblocking is theft" type discourse of past years.

"linux phone"

Don't make me tap the sign

Thunderbird and Firefox are developed by separate companies (both under the Mozilla Foundation). Thunderbird is funded through donations. Firefox is funded through (among other sources, such as Pocket and advertisements) the Google search deal. As far as I know it's not legally feasible (or even possible) for the Firefox money to go to Thunderbird or vice versa.