That is a VPN.

This is an appeal to the masses. There is not yet any consensus amongst anyone who has scientifically compiled data that AI use in nearly any application has yielded productivity gains, while ill effects of its use are widely documented with more being discovered often.

I am not saying that there are no productive applications for AI, but I am saying that of the currently millions of attempted applications for it, maybe a couple dozen will prove effective and truly have a positive cost-benefit ratio.

“9 out of 10 doctors recommend Camel cigarettes.”

I think there may be some misunderstanding on what constitutes “the community” and what “force applied” mean in this context.

In any self-governing body, there are written and unwritten rules of conduct. Nobody has any power or ability to force anyone to stay and participate in the community at all, so they literally have no power to force anyone to do anything. The only power they do have is conditional, and boils down to, “Anyone that wants to participate in this project must conduct themselves and their work by the guidelines we dictate.”

If there is a rift, and there is not consensus on what those guidelines should or should not contain, the smaller or less contributing group is no longer “conducting themselves and their work by the guidelines we dictate”, so their contributions are no longer accepted. The out group has not been forced to do anything at all, and is free to copy the project at the point of contention and take it in the direction of their own vision, setting up their own code of conduct and submission rules.

You could self host it anyway and just wait for the slow boil over at Discord to make the case for you. Surely they have only just begun making it worse.

I sincerely hope it is not their engineers that wanted this.

That maybe a philosophy held by some, such as to say walking into a house with a door swinging open should not count as trespassing, but I don’t know of anywhere where the law is set up that way, though I’m not very familiar with the laws in a ton of countries. Where I live, though, going somewhere uninvited counts as trespassing regardless of how many or few barriers there are to it. So, if you parachute into a secured vault with razorwire all around it with no trespassing signs everywhere, that’s the same crime as stepping in someone’s lawn that with a sign that says “please keep off the grass”.

I think the part that you’re finding galling is that many of us have a notion of hacking as as using a varied set of skills that are difficult to master towards bypassing complex security to gain access to locations or data. This contrasts greatly with the legal definition of that word, which can include those things, but really is so broad as to include going anywhere you weren’t supposed to with a computer. I imagine technical people especially might feel like calling someone that just logged in with someone else’s account information a hacker is insulting to the practice of hacking, but the legal system, at least in my country (USA) does just that.

You didn’t break the law, just violated a contract. The user you gave your credentials to violated the law, because the contract you signed stipulated that permission for them to access your account was not yours to give. That means they accessed your account in an unauthorized manner, which meets the definition of hacking.

I am not trying to argue the merits of what does and doesn’t constitute hacking, but these terms have objective, legal definitions in the jurisdictions they’re taking place. We don’t have to like or agree with those things, but it doesn’t change the current situation that has them set up this way.

You can. You violated the TOS by sharing the details, making it exceptionally easy for them to hack you, then they did.

They ware widely regarded as among the most villainous companies in history along with DeBeers and the East India Trading Company. Among their more infamous crimes against humanity include bribing the leaders of developing nations to sign over water rights to aquifers their people are using, which they take completely for bottling, destroying the local ecosystem and population. When the malnourished mothers can’t produce milk to feed their babies, they say things like “use our baby formula instead then, which is much healthier than natural milk”. If there’s not already a Behind he Bastards on them, someone could make a whole podcast just on their villainy.

In this case, “doing your part” is probably accelerating the downfall of platforms you disapprove of by not participating in them. They have influence because of their critical mass, so leaving hurts them. They just don’t care or notice until they no longer have critical mass. No social media has ever regained it once lost.