Maybe. I feel like it's going to be kind of hard to make them care if you're still buying their product though.

Get people to fund their own smear campaign? Creative!

Let's just say if it was Feces Encrusted Nail(D) vs Anyone(R) I'd be going with my man FEN.

If it was possible for gay people to “become straight” they abso-fucking-lutely would. The reason why they don’t is because it’s impossible.

I don't doubt that some would, but I'd actually be surprised if it was the majority. A lot of people see their sexuality as an important part of their identity and wouldn't just give it up like that, even if doing so would make their lives easier.

Conservative makes no sense. It’s not changing for the sake of lot changing.

I agree with this part completely.

Liberalism is the same, it’s change for changes sake.

Where is this coming from though?

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

It doesn't have anything to do with randomly changing stuff just for change's sake.

To be fair, we can look at the Wikipedia definition for conservatism too and see if there's a more charitable way to interpret it:

Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

I'd say the answer is basically no: this is just an indirect way to say "appeal to tradition fallacy".

If grandma asks for a recipe using the ingredients ammonia, bleach and water then maybe if she ends up offing herself it wasn't an accident.

Maybe the bot isn't too useful but acting surprised or horrified because if you give it a list a crazy ingredients you get a recipe using the crazy ingredients you provided is kind of weird. This article is basically clickbait.

And others don’t feel guilty for eating meat.

Carrots are incapable of feeling anything: they can't be affected in a morally relevant way. Animals have emotions, preferences, can experience suffering and can be deprived of positive/pleasurable experiences in their lives.

Than you for recognizing that people have different feelings.

Obviously this isn't a sufficient justification for harming others. "I don't care about people with dark skin, please recognize that different people have different feelings." The fact that I don't care about the individuals I'm victimizing doesn't mean victimizing them is okay.

I want to talk to the first homospaien that ever came to be. Ask him/her where they came from.

A species isn't an actual thing, it's just an approach to classifying organisms that people find convenient to use. It has grey areas and isn't always applied consistently.

It's a little like the fallacy of the heap: if you drop a grain of sand, you don't have a heap of sand. If you keep droppings of sand, you'll end up with a heap. But then if you remove a grain of sand, it doesn't suddenly stop being a heap: it's kind of vague and ambiguous, there isn't a definite boundary where you can add or remove a single grain of sand and transition between definitely a heap of sand/definitely not a heap of sand.

Do you have suggestions what the future of lib.rs should be?

Not the same person, but my suggestions would be:

1. Reverse the decision to go closed source. Making stuff less transparent isn't really going to help, and the primary controversy is coming from philosophical differences not the code itself. You can't practically (and really shouldn't) hide your policies. So going closed source is just another thing for people to complain about.
2. Allow opting out of the opinionated parts in a relatively easy way. You can't force other adults to align with your philosophy here, and trying is just going to cause problems.
3. Personally, I think a better approach to the opinionated part isn't directly changing data or obscuring/deprioritizing results. What you could do instead is add a section that has some context about why you think certain categories/crates are harmful. This makes the information available but doesn't force people to do any particular thing.

I think by taking that approach you'll avoid a lot of the backlash because you are allowing people a choice.

I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, but personally I'd be pretty careful about editorializing/moderating content in this kind of situation. Suppose someone publishes as crate that actively causes harm. Users download it and get their data stolen/wiped/whatever. Can they reasonably have an expectation that you should have protected them from that sort of thing? After all, you are editorializing the content and going so far as to moderate content that doesn't cause direct immediate harm to an individual but even content that potentially is harmful to society.

Possibly I should disclose that I avoid lib.rs currently because I don't agree with the philosophy of editorializing crates and personally I hate opinionated stuff that doesn't give me choice/control. I use open source software/resources specifically because I care about having a choice. We don't disagree philosophically on points like the harm of crypto such as bitcoin, I just don't like this approach to dealing with it. Also, painting all crypto stuff with the same brush can potentially delay less (or maybe even non-?) harmful alternatives that don't involve wasting massive amounts of computation to no end.

More like:

Predatory pricing

exists.

Don't hold your breath waiting for anything to catch up to the 1%. To be honest, I don't know the average person even really want it to. I mean, suppose I use Uber. Am I really going to be out there writing letters to my congresscritter pressuring them to force Uber to stop selling their product below cost and consequently make my Uber rides significantly more expensive? "Oh man, I sure wish Amazon would stop selling me such cheap products with next day shipping. This problem needs to be fixed, they're hurting the free market!"

Eventually the frog might get boiled, but that's some time in the future. The frog is feeling comfy now.

Very sorry to contradict you, but this is absolute shit.

To be clear, I'm talking in relative terms. Would you argue that ChatGPT did a massively better job and didn't write "absolute shit"?

It looks good on the surface, but that’s all.

From some of the stuff I've seen published, that might just be enough for certain people. I could even be that "certain people" from time to time, sometimes just the right theme, setting and some time to fill is sufficient.

Too far in either direction is bad. If everything completely separate was so great, then there would be no need for federation at all: but actually building a community and creating areas that feel alive is tough to do that way. People don't want to individually manage connecting to random separate servers for each community, and if you didn't connect to the right random server maybe you never even find the community you would have contributed to in positive ways.

Getting rid of hateful stuff is good, in my opinion even though some people will muddy the waters it's really not that hard to determine what constitutes "hateful stuff". But there's also going overboard. "OMG, this server allows open user signups and some random dude signed up and created an unpleasant community. DEFEDERATE THE WHOLE SERVER IMMEDIATELY! IMMEDIATELY!!!"

Maybe a better solution is to have servers publish lists of new communities but not federate them to other servers right away. Maybe they need to reach a certain age and (possibly) be subject to some sort of approval process. That will give the administrator of the server a chance to recognize and deal with the problems before it starts to spread out across the federation. Of course, if someone just lets horrible stuff fester on their server and is unresponsive then by all means it should be defederated.