洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee)

@krans That's a real and legitimate grievance, but it's a different argument from the one we were having.

Your employer using LLM translation to cut costs on documentation for a massive Korean customer (while having the resources to do it properly) is a decision made by someone with power, to save money, at the expense of Korean users. That's worth being angry about.

But I'm an individual trying to participate in a public conversation. I can't hire a personal interpreter every time I want to respond to a post. The choice I actually face is: use available tools, or stay silent. Those aren't the same situation, and the same tool can mean very different things depending on who's holding it and why.

If anything, your example reinforces the point. The problem isn't the tool, but it's who gets to decide when it's “good enough.”

@krans The analogy is structurally interesting, but I think it breaks down at a crucial point.

With tax credits, the argument is that the subsidy lets employers off the hook—pressure that would otherwise force wages up gets absorbed by the state instead. The discomfort falls on capital, or at least that's the intent. But when you apply the same logic to language access, the discomfort doesn't fall on the Anglophone center. It falls on the people who were already excluded. The implicit suggestion becomes: non-English speakers should communicate less fluently, so that English speakers are eventually pressured into… what, exactly? Learning Korean? There's no mechanism there.

The deeper problem is that “lowering the bar for communication in English” is not the same thing as accepting English hegemony as permanent. I use these tools to participate in a conversation that would otherwise exclude me. That's not capitulation—it's the same logic as using a wheelchair ramp. You don't refuse the ramp because its existence lets architects keep building stairs.

The structural critique of hegemony is real and I share it. But it shouldn't cash out as advice to the marginalized to make themselves less legible. That's a cost I'm not willing to ask people to pay on behalf of a structural shift that may never come.

@Gargron

I'm writing this in English.

Not because English is my first language—it isn't. I'm writing this in English because if I wrote it in Korean, the people I'm addressing would run it through an outdated translator, misread it, and respond to something I never said. The responsibility for that mistranslation would fall on me. It always does.

This is the thing Eugen Rochko's post misses, despite its good intentions.

@Gargron argues that LLMs are no substitute for human translators, and that people who think otherwise don't actually rely on translation. He's right about some of this. A machine-translated novel is not the same as one rendered by a skilled human translator. But the argument rests on a premise that only makes sense from a certain position: that translation is primarily about quality, about the aesthetic experience of reading literature in another language.

For many of us, translation is first about access.

The professional translation market doesn't scale to cover everything. It never has. What gets translated—and into which languages—follows the logic of cultural hegemony. Works from dominant Western languages flow outward, translated into everything. Works from East Asian languages trickle in, selectively, slowly, on someone else's schedule. The asymmetry isn't incidental; it's structural.

@Gargron notes, fairly, that machine translation existed decades before LLMs. But this is only half the story, and which half matters depends entirely on which languages you're talking about. European language pairs were reasonably serviceable with older tools. Korean–English, Japanese–English, Chinese–English? Genuinely usable translation for these pairs arrived with the LLM era. Treating “machine translation” as a monolithic technology with a uniform history erases the experience of everyone whose language sits far from the Indo-European center.

There's also something uncomfortable in the framing of the button-press thought experiment: “I would erase LLMs even if it took machine translation with it.” For someone whose language has always been peripheral, that button looks very different. It's not an abstract philosophical position; it's a statement about whose access to information is expendable.

I want to be clear: none of this is an argument that LLMs are good, or that the harms @Gargron describes aren't real. They are. But a critique of AI doesn't become more universal by ignoring whose languages have always been on the margins. If anything, a serious critique of AI's political economy should be more attentive to those asymmetries, not less.

The fact that I'm writing this in English, carefully, so it won't be misread—that's not incidental to my argument. That is my argument.

韓國語(한국어) 母語(모어) 話者(화자)로서 정말 하고 싶은 말이 많아지게 하는 글이네… 只今(지금) 東京(도쿄) 旅行中(여행중)이라 글을 쓸 수가 없는데, 있다가 角(각) 잡고 제대로 反駁(반박) 글을 써 봐야 할 듯.

(Disclosure: Using the name and logo of Encyclia – symbolically, since Encyclia is not a legal entity – I have an active monthly donation to @fedify on OpenCollective. However, I do not believe that this is getting me any preferential treatment, and in my observation the Fedify project treats all contributors and downstream implementers with equal respect.)

Seems as good a day as any to thank @hongminhee and team for the exemplary work on @fedify. Following Fedify's big 2.0 release, my two largest interoperability pain points in @encyclia can be fixed. 🙂

https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/issues/473 means that people using @gotosocial will finally be able to follow @encyclia accounts soon (whenever I finish the upgrade).

https://github.com/fedify-dev/fedify/issues/472 will let me (and others) handle more account resolution edge cases and reduce failure mode traffic after Fedify 2.1 is out.

this piece by @hongminhee is excellent. #copyleft

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

それはそれとしてThisIsMissEm大先生がグラントを得られたことは良い話である。同氏が長いこと資金難そうだったのは気掛かりだったし

> When legality is used as a substitute for a value judgment, the question that actually matters gets buried in the footnotes of a law it has already outgrown.

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

Is legal the same as legitimate: #AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate #licensing #copyright

@monaco_koukoku ご報告ありがとうございます。まさに既知の問題で、先ほどGitHubのイシュー#472としてクローズされました。

問題の本質は、Delete(Actor)を送ってくるアクターはすでに削除済みであるため、署名検証に必要な公開鍵が取得できずFedifyが401 Unauthorizedを返してしまうことにあります。結果としてハンドラーが呼ばれないのは仕様どおりの動作ではあるのですが、Deleteの場合はそれが根本的に困るというわけです。

この問題は次のリリースのFedify 2.1.0で対処されます。InboxListenerSettersにonUnverifiedActivity()というフックが追加され、署名検証に失敗したアクティビティをアプリケーション側でオプトインして処理できるようになります。詳しい使い方はドキュメントをご参照ください。

現在お使いのv1.10.3では残念ながら組み込みの回避策がありません。v2.1.0の正式リリースはまだですが、プレリリースビルドv2.1.0-dev.513+f5543fcaがすでにnpmおよびJSRに上がっていますので、今すぐ試すことも可能です。

海鮮丼を食べにつじ半に来た。

Legal vs. Legitimate, good article by @hongminhee

> Whatever courts eventually decide about AI reimplementation, the question we need to answer first is not a legal one. It is a social one. Do those who take from the commons owe something back? I think they do. That judgment does not require a verdict

"Can the commons expect something back from those who extract value?" is a key question of Social experience design. The answer forms one of 3 core principles: The Mindfulness principle.

No. You can't expect *anything* back. That philosophical insight is crucial to organizing a healthy commons that's able to retain its value and evolve.

Paint any principles and values on a flag but as long as the battle is scattered farmers holding feeble Copyright Law pitchforks against a vast drone army, its no use. Know thy enemy helps too. It's not proprietary code or corporations. It's hypercapitalism: The Rules of Battle.

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47310160

https://coding.social/blog/reimagine-social/#chaordic-organization

I'm thinking of proposing a #fediverse/social web community track at @COSCUP 2026 (Aug 8–9, Taipei)—think FOSDEM's Social Web devroom, but in East Asia. Before I submit the CFP, I'd love to get a sense of what to call it. What do you think?

(Boosts appreciated!)

#ActivityPub #SocialWeb #fedidev #COSCUP

最近(최근) chardet의 MIT 리라이선싱과 關聯(관련)해서 Redis의 antirez와 Flask의 Armin Ronacher(一名(일명) mitsuhiko)가 이를 擁護(옹호)하는 글을 썼는데, 그에 對(대)한 나름대로의 反論(반론)을 써 봤습니다: 〈合法(합법)이면 公正(공정)한가: AI 再具顯(재구현)과 카피레프트의 侵蝕(침식)〉(한글).

chardetのMITへの再ライセンスをめぐって、RedisのantirezとFlaskのArmin Ronacher（通称 mitsuhiko）がそれを擁護する文章を書いていたので、自分なりの反論を書いてみました。

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/index.ja.html

Ghostty 1.3 is now out! Scrollback search, native scrollbars, click-to-move cursor, rich clipboard copy, AppleScript, split drag/drop, Unicode 17 and international text improvements, massive performance improvements, and hundreds more changes. https://ghostty.org/docs/install/release-notes/1-3-0

Here's these posts in blog article form: https://writings.thisismissem.social/how-standards-are-made/

Title: Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft
Link: https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

這篇文章討論了 chardet 這個 Python 編碼檢測庫在使用 AI 重寫後，授權和社會倫理問題的爭議。

### 文章翻譯與總結：

2026 年 3 月 9 日，chardet 庫的維護者 Dan Blanchard 發布了第 7.0 版本，此版本比之前快了 48 倍，並支持多核心，且重寫後完全新建，原始代碼相似度低於 1.3%。他聲稱藉由使用 AI（Anthropic 的 Claude）依照 API 和測試套件重寫，因而不受原 LGPL 授權約束，改採 MIT 授權。原作者 Mark Pilgrim 反對此作法，指出 LGPL 規定修改必須維持相同授權，且 AI 重寫並

@hongminhee@hollo.social said

The proposed solution is to split responsibility more aggressively: the C2S server should be nearly stateless and dumb, storing ActivityPub objects without interpreting them, while a separate “client” layer handles indexing, timelines, moderation, and exposes its own API to the frontend running on the user's device. It's a clean separation of concerns on paper.

This is exactly what I say in the talk that I still need to record, and why I was working on that ActivityPDS concept last september.

Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

chardetのMITへの再ライセンスをめぐって、RedisのantirezとFlaskのArmin Ronacher（通称 mitsuhiko）がそれを擁護する文章を書いていたので、自分なりの反論を書いてみました。

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/index.ja.html

Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.

Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

#GPL #LGPL #license #opensource #freesoftware

"Whatever courts eventually decide about AI reimplementation, the question we need to answer first is not a legal one. It is a social one. Do those who take from the commons owe something back?"

#OSS #copyleft #license #software #GenAI

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

An excellent read

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

#copyleft #aislop

@vappster BotKit currently supports only a single bot per instance, but in the future releases, such limitation could be gone. See also this related issue: https://github.com/fedify-dev/botkit/issues/16.

@hyaniner 읽어주셔서 고맙습니다!

Is legal the same as legitimate: AI reimplementation and the erosion of copyleft by @hongminhee https://lobste.rs/s/52jd6f #law #vibecoding
https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/

最近(최근) chardet의 MIT 리라이선싱과 關聯(관련)해서 Redis의 antirez와 Flask의 Armin Ronacher(一名(일명) mitsuhiko)가 이를 擁護(옹호)하는 글을 썼는데, 그에 對(대)한 나름대로의 反論(반론)을 써 봤습니다: 〈合法(합법)이면 公正(공정)한가: AI 再具顯(재구현)과 카피레프트의 侵蝕(침식)〉(한글).