Many states also have their own stricter codified procedural protections for disciplining public employees, and of course that's before you get into cop union shit, though obviously the whole premise of the argument here is that we would be changing those state/local rules. But that stuff is a whole other can of worms. I'm just saying that even if you change state/local law/rules, even if you abolish cop unions, any police disciplinary body trying to operate this way they would definitely lose a lawsuit from the first cop they disciplined. I've personally seen multiple fucking volunteer firemen win constitutional due process challenges over getting demoted (like, from assistant chief to secondary assistant chief of what is mostly a social club) because they were disciplined without a formal hearing that afforded them procedural due process.

Unlike parent I'm not saying this is good or that to change it would be "unfair", just that what we're describing here -- that is, making it practically possible to discipline cops -- is disallowed under our current system of laws as we understand it. It would take a variety of substantive changes in how we legislatively and judicially structure procedural rights at every level of government from the top down.

The result is that a lot of developers have had to sign contracts with their employers that say they'll never use or contribute to AGPL code even in their personal time. This is often reinforced by mandatory compliance training that repeats bogus nonsense about how if you ever run an AGPL program on your personal laptop you could turn the entire company codebase into GPL code. These myths then proliferate and end up driving other companies to do the same thing. It's all FUD of course, whether the people repeating it know that or not, but the practical consequences are that a lot of people legally cannot interact with AGPL projects at all. Again, that's not because the license is all that restrictive but because of what amounts to a universal corporate boycott.

the real problem isnt always your local bofh, it's the other bofhs, and it's the fact that your friend's local bofh who has a tiny fiefdom of a few thousand users can unilaterally cut off access between those users and the few thousand people on your instance.

i'm not going to go so far as to say "centralization is good", but in a centralized system, a personality clash between a couple internet janitors might lead to a new subforum being made that a few users might choose to go to. in a decentralized system, a personality clash between internet janitors leads to platform-wide technological incompatibilities for thousands of users who have nothing to do with it.

This was originally brought up in the context of saying that certain people removed eth and added 0x which is in context still clearly a reference to crypto, so the username fad just changed, and these probably (sadly) shouldn't be seen as Ethereum/crypto dying or losing popularity. Your implication is that Ethereum and crypto are dying and their users are en masse getting very interested in computer science and the hexadecimal numbering system and all happened to decide to change their names to include 0x for that reason, but it seems a lot more likely that the crypto cult is just playing follow the leader.

Like, okay, you can't expect a doctor to save the life of every person who comes into the ER, but you can hopefully expect them not to start stabbing patients to death, and something should probably happen if they do, right?

Your argument makes sense for inaction (and is important and not brought up enough, honestly; there is a lot of entitlement in the open source world and people treat library developers in some pretty nasty ways), but not for action, as is the case here. The only obligation anyone expected here was the obligation to hold yourself back from making your project that gets millions of downloads per week point to malware.

In answer to your insincere question, no one demands anything as "a matter of state mandate". C-16 does not even once mention pronouns. If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably building the house of this comment on the shaky foundation of a thousand YouTube videos from the same side of YouTube that you've gone out of your way to watch about C-16. The biggest issue you'll have with that is that it means you're going to have a hard time in discussions with people who are actually even somewhat educated on the topics you're trying to jump into.

Edit: It's worth noting that when the commenter actually did name the examples they were thinking of, it was entirely related to right-wing YouTube personalities, so it looks like I was on to something there.