[floppyd]

This is becoming tangential, but to me someone at this point saying "ban AI company from accessing content without explicit agreement" screams virtue signaling to me, because it directly translates to "I refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation and will just continue saying that we need to do the 'right' thing".

[ipaddr]

They didn't drop copyright on music because of napster they sued everyone and anyone. Why give up now?

[const_cast]

The difference between you and those other people is those other people don't care if AI fails. They have the opinion that if you do something illegal or morally wrong, you should fail. That's not a side-effect to them, that's the whole point.

So when you, and other's, stroll up and say "but but if we do this then AI companies won't be able to make money!!1! And also China!" that doesn't mean anything. Because then the response is, "well yeah, illegal actions shouldn't make you money."

[throw10920]

This is emotionally manipulative and fallacious. That's an invalid use of "virtue signaling" that also fails to refute the argument, and intentionally conflates the positive and the normative to push an agenda.

Saying "I refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation and will just continue saying that we need to do the 'right' thing" like it's a bad thing is also implying that morals don't matter.

People who don't have morals don't belong in society.