my_hat_stinks

Utter nonsense. Your argument is that because you can imagine a god and spread the idea they are real. The logical conclusion there is that anything you can imagine is equally real. Bigfoot really is wandering around a forest, spaghetti absolutely does grow in trees, and the moon landing was definitely on a sound stage (but they also really landed on the moon because I can picture that too).

I'm not convinced. Most magic systems in fiction have rules, meaning they can be scientifically proven and studied. Magic is simply when something falls outside your understanding of how the world works. It's all about your perspective.

There's a part in the Lord of the Rings where Galadriel shows Sam and Frodo a scrying pool. To Galadriel it's normal, simply the way the world is. To the hobbits it's magic.

‘And you?’ she said, turning to Sam. ‘For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?’

I still can't wrap my head around the fact there's a group who intentionally named themselves "proud boys" which somehow isn't a group for openly gay men. If they weren't a neo-fascist terrorist organisation I'd think the whole thing was a joke.

Damn, you must hate cucumber water.

Could be a courgette, that's a much more common vegetable soup ingredient.

If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It's possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.

You absolutely do not need to "burn all your devices" to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.

People already do, this comic is about a real thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

QR codes essentially just encode text, as long as you're using a sensible QR code reader and check any URLs before opening them there's minimal risk to scanning a QR code.

Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you've described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction "send this". If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that's the notification to be sent, the only reason I'd hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.

The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.

From what you've described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.

You're entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.

I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice's use breaches Bob's licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob's use breaches Alice's licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie's use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.

By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.

It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties' already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It's incredibly unlikely anyone "fears" you giving them more rights.

If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they're saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you're licencing your content or are they complaining that you're saying the licence does something it does not do?

As for "what business it is" of mine; this is a public forum. If you're not ready to defend yourself don't spread misinformation.

People calling you out for being wrong isn't astroturfing. It's not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.

The problem with your argument is everyone's only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don't need permission the licence doesn't matter. You don't need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.

If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.

And all that's still ignoring the fact you're putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.