FriendOfDeSoto

The solution is education, teaching media savvyness. Maybe a few restrictions in the market and introducing oversight and costly liability. The political angle is secondary. Both extreme right and extreme left may lean towards not educating people to keep them servile. But that’s just using slop for their own ends.

I wouldn’t know. I ad block everything;)

This is a dumb article. Something got 800 likes on Facebook? Wow. Something happened on X? WGAF?

The idea that this would be a partisan use case is BS. And yes, we’ll have a solid base of slop naïveté within the general population that will distribute more or less evenly along the political spectrum. But more often than not people question shit that seems to be too good to be true. They just don’t use Facebook any more because they have common sense. Turning this into the MAGAs vs. The Libs is utterly pointless and clickbaity and I regret having followed through on this link.

But can I tell you that - regardless of the content - this feels more like a blatant attempt at getting more YouTube views with a patreon link in tow?

I mean, logically, it would make sense to push VPNs into illegality or create a lot of gray area there if you’re also planning to introduce the Aussie social media ban. Logically. I personally think both are no good.

I’ve read some headlines about illegal streaming being targeted and shut down in Europe. If there was lobby money invested, I suspect it is the likes of sports rights holders who would like you to pay them extortionate amounts of money and not sail the high seas for the price of a VPN.

Modstå, kære dansker.

If omnipotent deity of your choice forbid this ever lands at the ECJ I’m not sure they will side with the privacy/freedom of speech side of the argument.

TYL you cannot trust a statistic that you haven’t forged yourself.

Somebody is going to jump into this. But I would keep my eyes open beyond just the Chinese market. Vietnam and Thailand are interesting places to watch. V because of the relative sweetheart deal with the trumpist of tariffs. And T because they already do a lot of SSD manufacturing. And China, more than any other country, will be at the mercy of a particular person’s bowel movements on Pennsylvania Ave.

You could argue my take is too accepting of the current situation and I would agree with that. At the same time, I would argue yours is simplifying things quite a bit. Subscription TV channels came after free-to-air channels with commercials. This may depend on where you live in the world but most places have at least one local station or a selection of them broadcast through the air, not cable or satellite, and not subscription based. Financed through commercials or in some countries also through a license model (like in the UK). Cable/satellite/subscription channels are iterations on the model brought to you by capitalism. Ads in public transport can lower ticket prices. Billboards can help lower rental rates in buildings and their revenue adds to the tax intake of the community they’re in. If you think it already takes too long to get potholes fixed, it would take even longer without them. Not all roads are toll roads. I get it: you don’t like billboards. You’re going to get all these unintended side effects if they were banned tomorrow.

Online ads are insufferable. I’m running 3-4 plugins to avoid them. I’m also normally watching broadcast TV on DVR so I can skip through the commercial breaks. I bail on any subscription service that adds ads.

The problem online is the cause of the problem. It’s the simplicity with which data can be collected and the lack of regulation. It’s also generally still paying off a debt incurred when in the early days of www users got accustomed to getting everything ‘for free.’ Traditional media has lowered the price dramatically of its own offerings to get new eyeballs online while older streams of income still paid for most expenses, like the income from TV commercial revenue or sales of printed paper. And as these traditional sources of great rivers of money decreased over decades, the ones that replaced it were digital trickles in danger of drying out. That brought about a “militarization” of online ads, ever more targeted and annoying. This problem needs a multi-pronged approach including regulation of data collection and new financing models for media in general.

Chose your own dystopia. Where no ads exist and everything is pay per view/read/report/etc. Or the one we’re in.

The bigger problem with traffic deaths is that we developed a system of transportation that relies heavily on cars that are mostly driven by humans. Removing billboards is not going to improve on that that much. But underwear model billboard pileups are a thing. But so are those caused by drivers on their phones and my guess there are way more of those.

Tracking and selling of information has gotten out of hand, no doubt. It is political decisions or a lack thereof that got us here.

Btw everybody thinks they’re immune to advertising. And we’re not.

The unofficial wisdom of marketing is that half of any advertising budget is wasted. They just don’t know which half. So they continue. This whole thing boils down to the fiduciary responsibilities to provide as much value to shareholders again, the bane of capitalism. They cannot afford to check which half is wasted.

And just for some context here: personally I don’t mind billboard ads to be honest.

I think the abundance of tools available to block ads online hints at a movement in itself. We don’t need a leader or a central committee.

The wrinkle I see here is that a generalized ‘everybody’ hates ads but ‘everybody’ is also aware of the fact that they finance a large swath of stuff that we would have to pay for otherwise.

Is every scenario with so-called AI in it caused by humans? Sure. That’s not really my point though. It was humans who caused the dumb situation around private gun ownership that then eventually caused school shootings to be a thing schools need to prepare for. I would tolerate the use of so-called AI here under these dumb circumstances and moreover would tolerate a false positive like this. I feel similarly positive about the use of models in medicine - if and when it helps. Or as a tool for people with disabilities. Et cetera.

Normally we lambast here very dumb applications of so-called AI. The ones that get lawyers in trouble, the ones that get forced into areas where it’s unnecessary, the ones that boil away drinking water senselessly, or that ask children for nudes, or - sadly - the ones that drive teenagers to suicide. We lambast all the peddlers of so-called AI with their dumb predictions about how their faulty products will revolutionize everything. That’s the spirit of “Fuck AI.” My point was this story is less in keeping with the spirit of “Fuck AI.” So-called AI might actually help to make a bad situation not get worse.

None of those ch’s are guttural and you skipped an h;)

The delightful thing is that it works in reverse also: ask a native English speaker to pronounce “Eichhörnchen.”

“Would-be assassin shot in the head turns out be 8th grader holding clarinet”

Is this really a case of fuck AI? To anybody outside the US this paragraph reads like fucking satire. From within, where kids learn how to crouch under desks, hide behind bullet proof whiteboards or something, and lock down better than the CIA this doesn’t really move the needle, does it? The trauma is already there with all the drills and is eternal, as is the 2nd amendment. And this is one area where you would prefer a false positive over a false negative. So for me this isn’t so much fuck AI as fuck every lawmaker of the US since the civil war.

Oh boy, it will be doubly difficult now to tell insane policy apart from the hallucinations.

Best boss I ever had.

It’s an assumption that many people will be unemployed and unemployable in other functions. So far, every big change (like the Industrial Revolution or the advent of computers in the workplace) have lead to temporary displacements, and the longer ago it happened violent side effects. But in the big picture, we have found ways to put the human resource back into the machine. Accountants were supposed to go extinct with the arrival of Microsoft Excel. But their numbers have increased because they can do more useful things with their time than doing the math. The assumption may be more fear mongering. (And it’s too early to tell if you ask me.)

So I don’t think they will kill us off just yet because it isn’t entirely clear that we’re not needed. It’s also possible that so-called AI frees up people and resources that can be channeled into what are chronically underfunded professions today, like teaching or medical care. We have a tendency to think in Matrix or 1984 terms of the future when more positive outcomes exist.

This has to be in the top 5 of story threads they should pick up again in any show. Conspiracy bugs are on one. Then Living Witness backup doc. What’s the gamma quad like post dominion? Maybe followed by Moriarty with a mobile emitter. Etc.

You want the current laws applied. I say the current laws are not good enough to get anybody convicted, no matter how rich they are. And since I’d much prefer to live in a world where I’m wrong, let’s stop arguing.