ChairmanMeow

Tai was actively being manipulated by malicious users.

Music locker services are frequenly targeted and taken down, as GlitterInfection mentioned. There's multiple cases on the Wikipedia page.

There is a jump between hosting and sharing, but that jump is very small. Share it with 1 other person, and you have made unauthorised copies of the licensed material, and are therefore acting against the law. That's not FUD, that's been reality for the past few decades.

Whether or not the illegal sharing of licensed material is done via a generic website, a federated service of even carrier pidgeon doesn't matter, an unlicensed copy is an illegal copy. Rightsholders have pleny of avenues to force a takedown against specific instances. And if they can successfully argue that the primary purpose of this software is piracy, they may even have enough legal arguments to force a takedown of the sourcecode.

Of course, the main question is whether rightsholders will bother with this as long as it remains small-scale. Legal costs would likely outweigh the missed income. But that doesn't actually shield you from legal liability.

They would be able to sue the webhost in order to retrieve basically all the data if they have strong and reasonable suspicions that the website is hosting copyrighted material.

This really isn't as foolproof in legal terms unfortunately. With torrent websites there's still some ambiguity as the website doesn't host the copyrighted material, just the torrent files. But here the website itself is liable, painting a massive legal target on their backs.

ISPs can be compelled to share name/address information of anyone involved in publishing licensed material through the courts. Then they'll summon you to stop or pay a fairly hefty fine.

At least in the Netherlands this would still constitute unauthorised copying of licensed material, and therefore be illegal.

As CEO he is ultimately responsible for his platform. So yes, in the end it's his responsibility. It's why he gets paid the big bucks.

The article reads:

When asked by CNN to simply generate an image of an interracial couple, meanwhile, the Meta tool responded with: “This image can’t be generated. Please try something else.”

Which is what I'm referring to.

I wonder if Meta implemented a very basic "no porn keywords" filter. "Interracial" is quite a common keyword on porn websites, perhaps that's why it won't pick up on it well or wasn't trained on images like it?

I don't think about them at all to be honest. Total disinterest.

GDPR applies regardless of any "business". It applies to any entity processing personal data.

Which is incredibly broad by the way. IP addresses and email addresses are personal data too. Same goes for "account data" in a broad sense. So Lemmy does collect personal data, and has to be compliant with the GDPR.

Of course, for a fine there needs to be an investigation and the entity has to not comply with GDPR requests after a warning. And you're absolutely right that devs can't be sued for this, but the sysadmin running the instance can be. But that would only happen after GDPR noncompliance.

It absolutely is enforceable, and the EU has already enforced it several times.

The EU can of course try to seize assets, but in many cases they have signed a treaty with other countries stating they have the right to enforce the GDPR within their borders. Think a bit in the sense of an extradition treaty. For the US, this is the EU-US Data Privacy Framework for example.

This means the EU absolutely can, will and has the means to enforce the GDPR abroad.

It's both indeed, citizens as well as residents.