Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
127
Joined
8 mo. ago

  • (1) Offer a solution which exacerbates bot-traffic on the internet, (2) legitimize the need for verification of users as a result, (3) offer the most privacy-invasive "solution" to the "problem" imaginable: problem(1)-reaction(2)-solution(3)... every parasite's favorite paradigm :)

  • I'm a European, and yet I wrote this; but I would agree many people (regardless of whether or not European) have progressively been accustomed, to having their personal identify tied to their devices (often for the sake of convenience, or out of necessity: the uncalled-for Two Factor Authentication (2FA) applications, for accessing government or work-related services, being an example), and I've not been an exception to that rule.

    For me these were limited to applications, typically where a higher degree of security is expected: banking applications, the before mentioned 2FA applications, government mailbox applications, etc. But I've also once sent, a nearly fully redacted copy of my driver's license to YouTube, in order to listen to music with naughty artwork (which I already believed to be ridiculous at the time, but gave into nevertheless).

    Currently I would never let such applications near devices for general use, and it wouldn't even cross my mind, to ever send any signal that signifies I'm not, in fact, a child, and shouldn't be treated as such; ultimately so abusive services are green-lit to surveil me as an adult, instead of having to be more conservative (as data collection on children is typically more strict: for whatever reason... instead of people, regardless of age, being treated with dignity).

    So no, not everybody has applications on their device, which link to, or directly store one's personal identity. I rarely have to interact with financial or government services, and have zero interest, in being required to do so in order to access "age-restricted" content online. I like my pseudo-anonymity, and do not at all, trust a government application, which links this pseudo-anonymous activity to my personal identity.

  • Welp, this was bound to happen, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure they're referring to this application, which I stumbled upon a while back. If I remember correctly, the app "allows" (or implicitly forces) the user to store a government issued identity: able to attest to an age-restricted website, whether or not the user is of age.

    It does this, supposedly by "just" sharing an age-bracket with the website; but here's the kicker: the Union, in its generosity, has granted their citizens an in-app option, to withdraw this signal from the websites it has been provided to. What this means in practice, is the app storing one's government-issued identify, also ties back to every account requiring "age-verification"...

    So now, every device containing the app, has the owner's government-issued identify on it, together with connections to every age-restricted service. And considering the apps are maintained by the Union, or member states (through their own implementations), creating a backdoor to the application's contents... I mean to "observe app usage", would be absolutely trivial.

    Again, I've read it a while back, so some things might've changed, and my memory might be spotty; but I'm quite sure it's along the lines I've described.

  • Which in practice will simply drive up the price: like refundable deposits

  • Deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” tech businesses and nonprofits, including its own

    I mean, how else can you deplete a non-profit's reserves?

  • Yeah, I guess if you want users to keep sharing "confessions, [] difficult debates, or silly inside jokes" through a platform you've acquired, E2EE might give the WhatsApp user the false sense of privacy required.

  • One would almost start to think the lawyers were out for the settlement money...

  • E2EE isn't really relevant, when the "ends" have the functionality, to share data with Meta directly: as "reports", "customer support", "assistance" (Meta AI); where a UI element is the separation.

    Edit: it turns out cloud backups aren't E2E encrypted by default... meaning: any backup data, which passes through Meta's servers, to the cloud providers (like iCloud or Google Account), is unobscured to Meta; unless E2EE is explicitly enabled. And even then, WhatsApp's privacy policy states: "if you use a data backup service integrated with our Services (like iCloud or Google Account), they will receive information you share with them, such as your WhatsApp messages." So the encryption happens on the server side, meaning: Apple and Google still have full access to the content. It doesn't matter if you, personally, refuse to use the "feature": if the other end does, your interactions will be included in their backups.

  • So multiple, nickel-titanium alloy tubes, are stretched and released within the refrigerator, causing a temperature change in the alloy, the heat of which (pulled from the interior) transferred to the calcium chloride fluid, being pumped around through the tubes; to be transferred to the outdoor climate, by use of an exterior heat exchanger. Something along those lines?

  • Reliance wouldn't be my primary concern, but rather the privacy implication. It seems like Google has to step up its surveillance game /s. Fun project though

  • So the amend alleges, Nvidia having used/stored/copied/obtained/distributed copyrighted works (including plaintiffs'), both through databases available on Hugging Face ('Books3' featured in both 'The Pile' and 'SlimPajama'), or pirating from shadow libraries (like Anna's Archive), to train multiple LLMs (primarily their 'NeMo Megatron' series), and distributing the copyrighted data through the 'NeMo Megatron Framework'; data which was ultimately sourced from shadow libraries.

    It's quite an interesting read actually, especially the link to this Anna's Archive blog post. Which it grossly pulls out of context, as plaintiffs clearly despise the shadow libraries too: as they have ultimately provided access to their copyrighted material.

    Especially the part: "Most (but not all!) US-based companies reconsidered once they realized the illegal nature of our work. By contrast, Chinese firms have enthusiastically embraced our collection, apparently untroubled by its legality." makes me wonder if that's the reason why models like Deepseek, initially blew Western models out of the water.

  • So a Mastodon ripoff, but its instances hosted by a single entity (effectively centralized): ensuring all instances residing within the European jurisdiction (allowing for full control over it). I don't see how they genuinely believe, to have humans do the photo validation, when competing at the scale of X; especially when you run all the instances. Perhaps they could recruit volunteers to socialize the losses, as the platform privatizes the profits. Nothing but a privacy-centric approach however: said the privacy expert...

    Zeiter emphasized that systemic disinformation is eroding public trust and weakening democratic decision-making ... W will be legally the subsidiary of “We Don’t Have Time,” a media platform for climate action ... A group of 54 members of the European Parliament [primarily Greens/EFA, Renew, The Left] called for European alternatives

    If that doesn't sound like a recipe, for swinging the pendulum to the other extreme (once more), I don't know what does... Because can you imagine, a modern social media platform, not being a political echo chamber: not promoting extremism by use of filter bubbles, and instead allowing for deescalation through counter argumentation. One would almost start to think, for it all to be intentional: as a deeply divided population will never stand united, against their common oppressor.

  • Great, more hoops to jump thr... I mean... an "advanced flow", for gaining the privilege of installing apps of your choosing

  • innovation COURAGE

  • Maybe the best ad is to not have AI

  • THIS is how you do it, looking at you Brave: requiring me to (re)type my queries in the URL bar (appending '&summary=0' to it), so I'm not required to store a persistent cookie, keeping the damn setting off...

  • Well, we are using them today for human programmers, so… :-)

    True that haha...

  • I don't know: it's not just the outputs posing a risk, but also the tools themselves. The stacking of technology can only increase attack-surface it seems, at least to me. The fact that these models seem to auto-fill API values, without user-interaction, is quite unacceptable to me; it shouldn't require additional tools, checking for such common flaws.

    Perhaps AI tools in professional contexts, can be best seen as template search tools. Describe the desired template, and it simply provides the template, it believes most closely matches the prompt. The professional can then "simply" refine the template, to match it to set specifications. Or perhaps rather use it as inspiration and start fresh, and not end up spending additional time resolving flaws.

  • No worries! :)