Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A

atrielienz

@ atrielienz @lemmy.world

Posts
4
Comments
812
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • [META] Fuck ads: I recommend adding a rule to ban watermarked comics here

    Jump

  • Is it advertising when I sign my tax return? Enquiring minds want to know. Cause I sure as hell would love it if the IRS didn't know who I was or how much money I was making.

  • [META] Fuck ads: I recommend adding a rule to ban watermarked comics here

    Jump

  • Are you puppeting your bot account right now so that you can evade a ban?

    Genuinely asking because this is just like. The worst take ever, but the time frame between the number of posts you post per day and the fact that there was a post recently about bots not being allowed all make me suspect everything you've said.

  • Marriage over, €100,000 down the drain: the AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

    Jump

  • Think about the people you willingly surround yourself with. Then think about how often they agree with the things you think and say.

    As the saying goes "I'm sure there's someone out there who believes the exact opposite of everything I believe, and while I'm sure they aren't a complete idiot..."

    Everyone is susceptible to the feedback loop. Everyone can fall victim to the seduction of an echo chamber. While not everyone would ignore the red flag that this thing is a machine/digital algorithm rather than a person or sentient/sapient being, it's not really that hard to see how we got here. Echo chambers exist all over the internet. The difference is that most of them have some voices of dissent. The AI LLM doesn't offer that. They keep trying to add it in but it's basically antithetical to the design.

    When you add that to the fact that making it addictive benefits their bottom line is pretty obvious that they are trying to walk the line between being regulated by the government and making their product as popular as possible.

    I don't think they really knew it would have this exact effect. But I do think they plan to take advantage of it now that they know and I don't think we humans are all going to be able to fight the temptation of an automated propaganda machine.

    This is especially because mental health and healthcare in this country has been failing for decades, and even people who "don't have mental health problems" aren't magically mentally healthy, they just don't know the status of their mental health. A whole lot of people in the US especially are mentally ill or facing neurological medical problems that they don't know about.

  • White House App Found Tracking Users' Exact Location Every 4.5 Minutes via Third-Party Server

    Jump

  • I thought of the one app India was trying to force all phones sold in the country to have. That one was also tracking locations.

  • White House App Found Tracking Users' Exact Location Every 4.5 Minutes via Third-Party Server

    Jump

  • It was already a no from me, dawg, you don't have to convince me.

    No, but seriously. Everything he tries to implement is like 90'S cartoon level evil and sloppy. I bet we could get him monologuing.

  • White House App Found Tracking Users' Exact Location Every 4.5 Minutes via Third-Party Server

    Jump

  • I wonder if that dumb ass has downloaded his own app and let a third party track the POTUS in real time. I almost feel sorry for the agents assigned to his security detail.

  • Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For

    Jump

  • So, for the "it's the parents fault" bit I'll say this. Parents are the arbiters of Internet access in their homes. If that van with "Free Candy" written on it pulled into their driveway and they didn't call the police or warn their children not to get in the van, yes I would consider them liable.

    The fact is, lots of parents do know their children are using social media like Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok etc. A lot of parents are my age and younger (the age where we grew up with the internet and social media in its toddler years if not it's infancy). A lot of us do know the dangers (and are probably addicted ourselves).

    What some of us may lack is the knowledge to use parental controls effectively (and at least some of that is because we do dumb shit like using the same password for everything, or not changing default passwords).

    But I also think that some of us (looking at you collective shout and other organizations like it) just want to offload our responsibilities onto these companies so we have someone to blame.

    And even though I agree that what these companies are doing is wrong (directly targeting minors, deliberately making their platforms addictive, collecting data on minors etc), and I want them held accountable, I also don't think ID collection is warranted, and I view this as a way to violate privacy and collect data for surveillance purposes which I believe is wrong to do to people who haven't done anything illegal.

    Even if that weren't the case, these companies also just cannot be trusted to safeguard the PII data they're wanting to collect. So as far as I'm concerned the ID verification thing is just not going to work.

  • Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For

    Jump

  • I absolutely agree that parents do play a role and have some responsibilities for both their and their childrens internet literacy, as well as for what their children access on the internet. I also agree that companies bear some responsibility (for making their platforms addictive on purpose in order to make money off of people they already know are underaged).

    I just really want to put forth other ideas for fixing this problem that don't involve companies being forced by law to enact ID verification when they can't be trusted to safeguard such information and it feeds into the information database they already have, which will more than likely be used to violate the privacy of their users.

    If the government absolutely must get involved making it illegal to produce and give access to a platform found to be addictive would be a start, but so would media and internet literacy education, both of which are solutions that don't violate the privacy of minors or adults.

    Digital media literacy is part of the education system in Denmark and some other European countries and it's been beneficial to their populace. I think it could be a good solution.

  • Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For

    Jump

  • The harm doesn't come from the aspects of infinite scroll, auto play, or algorithmic examples in a vacuum.

    But we have statistically proven that when you gamify the system and the content can be considered harmful to consume too much of, those two factors are what makes it dangerous.

    Tricking the brain into doing something harmful to itself by gamification is the problem. The algorithm, auto play and infinite scroll are just mechanisms to facilitate that. Novelty only plays a small part in that. The algorithm by itself doesn't provide a dopamine hit. The infinite scroll by itself doesn't provide a dopamine hit. The auto play feature by itself doesn't cause a dopamine hit.

    Even when you combine all three the dopamine hit won't come if the content being pushed isn't sufficient to cause a rush of dopamine. And that dopamine rush often comes from things like upvotes and downvotes, and badges, and achievements. Follower counts and other metrics that the individual users use to get dopamine are being weaponized against them to make money. And it was intentional on the part of meta execs.

  • Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For

    Jump

  • I have a question. What if it's not just at a parenting level. What if it's also at a school in level? Because I think at least partially there is a disconnect between media and internet literacy and people of all ages including children and parents.

    I think we're going to need such skills going forward and that there exist places in the world where students are being taught such things and are benefiting from them significantly.

    Yet the immediate knee jerk reactions seem to be blame the parents and blame the companies that facilitate the access to the content.

    It doesn't have to be a parents by themselves against the world system. But it also can't just be a "companies protecting the children" system because that's not what companies do or are for? The need to maintain a profit margin flies directly in the face of the aim to hold companies responsible and the laws seem to be intent on capping the monetary consequences of a breach of the law.

    I do feel that the least a parent should be required to do before complaining to a governing body that they find someone else is "harming" their child is to show that they have done their due diligence to protect said child. We punish parents for willful negligence and child endangerment all the time. I don't understand why this is different but I also wonder if there are other options for educating both children and adults that could help the situation significantly.

  • European Union finds PornHub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos in breach of the Digital Services Act for allowing minors to access their services

    Jump

  • And we took up arms because they can pry my cat videos from my cold dead hands?

  • European Union finds PornHub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos in breach of the Digital Services Act for allowing minors to access their services

    Jump

  • While I agree that your situation isn't an edge case (I found dads locked porn collection of VHS tapes and learned that that lock could be circumvented with a fridge magnet) at the age of 9?

    But on the other hand, let's say you post something to the internet that may be considered not okay for children. And let's say that thing is about gun powder (which you absolutely can make from foraging natural ingredients). It's your personal website, it's labeled as not intended for children and you aren't a big company so you don't have the ability to just hire another company for things like age verification.

    Then you get sued by a regulatory body in another country because you didn't adhere to their laws? Does that sound reasonable to you?

    If a parent or guardian is taking every precaution to keep their kid safe that is reasonable within the law and that kid still gains access to something that can harm them that's an accident. If the parent takes no precautions and allows their child that they are legally responsible for the well being and safety of to raw dog life with no precautions whatsoever because that's too hard, or they don't care or whatever, then it seems reasonable to me that they be held responsible under the law.

    Their right to have a third party protect their children ends at my right to privacy which to me extends to my right to anonymity specifically because it has already been shown that without anonymity privacy just doesn't exist in this age of the internet.

    What does that mean? It means that companies that collect your data but promise "privacy" cannot be trusted to uphold that promise, which means the only option left is to be as anonymous as possible.

    I want you to understand that I do agree that when one kid figures out the loophole, that loophole spreads like wild fire.

    But on the other hand, if a child figured out how to turn off the security system to the family car, grabbed the keys and went for a joyride with their friends, is it the fault of the parents or the fault of the car manufacturer? Because one of them is legally liable under the law.

    Would it be acceptable to have to send your thumbprint to BMW every time you wanted to drive your car?

  • Newly purchased Vizio TVs now require Walmart accounts to use smart features

    Jump

  • I did not understand. I'll see myself out.

  • Newly purchased Vizio TVs now require Walmart accounts to use smart features

    Jump

  • Blacklisting it on your router would at least prevent it from trying to connect to an open WiFi network like your own guest network which some people just don't turn off or password protect.

    If you are one of those people and you're reading this turn that off. You can share your wifi via QR code these days from just about any smart phone. Turn it off.

  • Newly purchased Vizio TVs now require Walmart accounts to use smart features

    Jump

  • Do you think that only apple TVs have wifi chips?

  • Newly purchased Vizio TVs now require Walmart accounts to use smart features

    Jump

  • If you don't have the technical know how to physically lobotomize the TV's wifi chip, simply blocking its mac address would suffice.

  • Garuda Linux Says No to Age Verification Outside Legal Requirement

    Jump

  • 1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1400

  • Garuda Linux Says No to Age Verification Outside Legal Requirement

    Jump

  • Only in the jurisdictions where they operate (Germany and Finland).

  • Valve Sued By The Performing Rights Society Over Music Rights in Games Valve Doesn’t Make or Own

    Jump

  • I'm with you so far, but I question how that's still not the publisher's fault and their liability.

    The main reason is because it seems that when the publisher puts the game up for sale on steam, that entity chooses whether or not to add game play data including music and trailers. So they are choosing to give that information to Valve and giving Valve permission to use it. Which means they are the ones who don't have the legal ability per their license to do so but did so anyway.

    The best I could say for this lawsuit with those facts is that Valve is guilty of taking their word for it that they were legally allowed to use the posted video or audio in that way.

    If I license something and my license includes certain provisions for distribution but not other provisions for sale or advertisment, then I choose to advertise, then I should be liable for that breach not the venue that I used as the mode for advertisement.

    This is like suing a billboard company for posting an ad with artwork I didn't properly license for the advertisment space.