TL;DR: Mozilla’s translation bot on Support Mozilla (that is currently overwriting user contributions is based on the closed source, copyright infringing LLM, Google Gemini. This is in spite of Mozilla claiming that they are at the forefront of open source AI, and belies their exhortations to choose to build open source AI and data sets. Although Mozilla has experience in attracting open contributions for data sets in projects like Common Voice, Mozilla is using a closed data set to overwrite open contributions. Since (paid) Gemini queries do not train the model, Mozillians can expect to correct errors every time the bot automatically updates an article.
Lemmy head dev is an authoritarian shill, but only one of the two people we’re talking about lets it influence production and the project, and it’s not the transphobe (unless you’ve heard otherwise?).
So, if we’re doing ideological purity tests, do you have a platform you’d recommend we continue this conversation on instead?
Your comment contains a no true Scotsman logical fallacy so I will not engage with it
Well, then, let me give you a Tu Quoque: your original comment contains ad hominem and non sequitur.
Or, if you prefer: “No, U”
Attacking the ladybird dev who isn’t involved in the discussion here isn’t an ad hominem, and their response still fits the topic so it isn’t a non-sequitur either.
At the same time: Just having a logical fallacy doesn’t invalidate the argument. Claiming so is the fallacy fallacy.
Lol I always suspected people who call others out on fallacies all the time were committing some kind of fallacy. I call it the Ben Shapiro fallacy.
Fair enough, would you prefer my original term, “ideological purity testing”, at which we leftists so excel? I was pointing out that this guy’s original comment could just as easily be applied to Lemmy, so how is it relevant? If, for instance, The person who discovers, say, the Haber-Bosch process, also happens to design the chemicals used for the extermination camps, should we avoid using the Haber-Bosch process to revolutionaize agriculture? No, I stand by my claim of non-sequitur, since character assassination is an insufficient reason to throw out a valid argument, contribution, or invention. Should it be scrutinised? of course, but not because one of the developers is a dick. That is immaterial to the project. So either we should throw out the baby with the bathwater, and get rid of all of this free shit we use every day, or we can talk about things that actually matter, like functionality. Trans phobia should be fought, just like Fritz Haber deserves to get his name dragged through the mud. But the Haber-Bosch process has saved millions of lives.
Not because they’re a dick; because they are authoritarian and literally control a platform of discussion. A communication platform dev being an authoritarian is extremely disconcerting. Any kind of bigot in control of the media you see would be.
My logical fallacy contribution: It’s a slippery slope.
Is the ladybird dev an authoritarian? Because that’s very different from a racist, or a transphobe.
I haven’t seen a transphobe that didn’t also share authoritarian ideas when it comes to suppressing trans folk. Do you not see how that would be just as bad as a tankie having a bias in propping up non-Western dictatorships?
Fair! The only reason I’m still here on Lemmy is because it’s open source and I can defederate from them, but Ladybird’s motives certainly bear scrutiny. However, I’m sure that we’ll get a full rundown on privacy and security when it’s in a truly unable state.