This was happening to me until I repatched and reinstalled the app. I didn’t change anything between installs so I’m not sure what happened.

Just chiming in to say thanks for the update and all the hard work!

Why would the clause be unenforceable? It doesn’t violate any of the general principles of contract law. If you intentionally contract around these terms that don’t violate any existing body of law and don’t run counter to public interest, a court would have no problem enforcing the terms of a contract. They probably wouldn’t sue you or me in our individual capacity if we circumvented. There’s a much greater chance of recovery if they go after a company which is pretty clearly using their service in a bad faith. If ByteDance wanted to use their LLM to train their own, they could’ve negotiated such a license.

Sorry for the late reply, but this doesn’t really seem like it’d come close to invoking any of the US’s neutered antitrust enforcement. Open AI doesn’t have a monopoly position to abuse, since there are other large firms offering LLMs that see reasonable amounts of usage. This clause amounts more to an effort to stop reverse engineering than stifle anyone trying to build an LLM.

I can’t speak for every jurisdiction, but I’d be hard pressed to see why it wouldn’t be legal in the US, especially in these circumstances. ByteDance is a massive legally sophisticated corporation, so they should’ve been expected to fully read and understand the terms and conditions before accepting them. They probably won’t bring a legal challenge, because they know they don’t have a particularly strong legal argument or a sympathetic angle to use.

They did fully not exclude it from legislation yet. Apple simply contested their iMessage’s as a gatekeeper under the definition used in the act, and the Commission is in the process of determining whether or not that is true. If iMessage is determined to be a gatekeeper, Apple will only have bought themselves a few more months before they have to comply with the DMA.

Assuming that these patents are all granted, courts will generally treat them as though they are valid and enforceable. However, the bar for getting a patent is generally rather difficult, so it could be the case that none of these patent prosecutions are successful at all. If they get these patents, all Nintendo would have to do is file an infringement against allegedly infringing parties, and then the onus is almost entirely on the responding party to prove either that they did not violate the patent, or that the patent was invalid in the first place. Nintendo loses almost nothing in trying to enforce a patent, and has plenty to gain from the chilling effect that prolonged litigation could have.

Unfortunately, I think this feature is app-specific since it’s not something that Lemmy itself supports. I’m sure that if the feature is implemented into Lemmy proper, LJD will implement the official solution with a method to merge the preexisting filter lists.

You can add instances to the filter here Settings shortcut: Filters > Instance filters