kibiz0r

Convincing the working class that tools the system creates are free of the system’s agenda may be an even greater achievement.

Conspiring to jack up rent prices is exploitative when people do it. Is it any different when the RealPage algorithm does it indirectly?

I don’t see any value in saying that human behavior is the problem but then specifically carving out an exception for the automated agents we create to amplify specific behaviors.

When RedBubble ganks art and sells it on t-shirts, how is that different from when Stability ganks art and sells it at a text prompt?

For most of human history, and even today, much of our individual identity is heavily tied to our familial identity.

Saying that someone’s mother is especially promiscuous is basically saying that you can’t trust any claims about what their true family tree is, or that it is that way on purpose.

The reason the insulter would use themselves as an example is because they clearly don’t have any romantic interest in her.

It’s less about it being an accomplishment for the insulter, and more about it meaning nothing at all to them. That you may end up with a half-sibling as a consequence of nothing truly significant.

It’s as if to say that your family’s constituency is so carelessly crafted that the entire reason you exist at all may be that someone offered your mom an Oreo for a handjob and she counter-offered with sex for the whole sleeve.

As an able-bodied neurotypical 30-something straight white cis male with a suburban middle class upbringing and an office job, I don’t participate in identity politics.

They call them ReTruths?

I literally can’t even.

It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”

Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL

Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!

Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”

Article: literally has a section explaining how

Edit:

Replies: "Yeah, but that's just a summary. I'll believe it when they explain in full detail."

Article: literally has a link to the detailed explanation

Well yeah. I mean, the big companies hire psychologists to conduct user studies to maximize time on device, and they model their user experience after variable reward schedules from slot machines. Seems obvious that they're nefarious.

I just have no idea how you can effectively regulate big tech.

At every corner, the fundamental dynamic of big tech seems to be: Do the same exploitative, antisocial things that we decided long ago should be illegal... but do it through indirect means that make it difficult or impossible to regulate.

If you change the definition of employment so that gig-work apps like Uber become employers, they'll just change their model to avoid the new definition.

If you change the definition of copyright infringement so that existing AI systems are open to prosecution, they'll just add another level of obfuscation to the training data or something.

I'm glad they're willing to do something, but there has to be a more robust approach than this whack-a-mole game we're playing.

Edit: And to be clear, I am also concerned about the collateral damage that any regulation might cause to the grassroots independent stuff like Lemmy... but I think that's pretty unlikely. The political environment in the US is such that it's way, way more likely that we just do nothing -- or a tiny little token effort -- and we just let Meta/Google/whoever fully colonize our neurons in the end anyway.

Error: Challenge already accepted on your behalf

For some reason people in art believe they don't have to compete like every other individual creating a business

If you think art is about selling a product, what’s the point of being alive?

Interacting with people whose tone doesn’t match their words may induce anxiety as well.

Have they actually proven this is a good idea, or is this a “so preoccupied with whether or not they could” scenario?

I'm gonna do the most annoying thing in the world here, and just tell you to go watch Finding The Money. I feel like that's a dick move in 99% of circumstances, but I did explicitly start this thread with the notion that after watching that documentary... I felt like these were misleading terms. So if you wanna discuss whether they are misleading terms given that context, it might be useful to share that same context.

I'm down to talk more afterwards. You've been a good pen pal.