Skip to content

Creative Commons is Introducing CC Signals: A New Social Contract for the Age of AI

Technology
9 6 95
  • 414 Stimmen
    114 Beiträge
    94 Aufrufe
    I
    I strangle anyone who sees my face.
  • Uber Eats is adding AI to menus, food photos, and reviews

    Technology technology
    38
    1
    152 Stimmen
    38 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    sharkattak@kbin.melroy.orgS
    ...you just have to trust that those reviews won't get "adjusted" in the process...
  • 218 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    304 Aufrufe
    Q
    How difficult would it be to mirror most popular youtube channels to peertube if instance operators picked a few channels each and kept them updated?
  • 122 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    50 Aufrufe
    captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.orgC
    Anytime I get one as an Uber I try to play stupid like I can’t figure out the door handles. Slam the doors, pull the emergency door release (if there is one), push against the motorized door close mechanism. Ask if there’s a shade for the glass roof. Anything to remind the driver that it’s not a good car, especially as a taxi.
  • Bluesky is rolling out age verification in the UK

    Technology technology
    40
    1
    165 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    570 Aufrufe
    3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com3
    you know that the new online safety act mandates age verification for pretty much anything don't you?
  • How Do I Prepare My Phone for a Protest?

    Technology technology
    139
    1
    505 Stimmen
    139 Beiträge
    3k Aufrufe
    D
    So first, even here we see foundation money and big tech, not government. Facebook, Google, etc mostly love net neutrality, tolerate encryption, anf see utility in anonymous internet access, mostly because these things don't interfere with their core advertising businesses, and generally have helped them. I didn't see Comcast and others in the ISP oligopoly on that list, probably because they would not benefit from net neutrality, encryption, and privacy for obvious reasons. The EFF advocates for particular civil libertarian policies, always has. That does attract certain donors, but not others. They have plenty of diverse and grassroots support too. One day they may have to choose between their corpo donors and their values, but I have yet to see them abandon principles.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Telegram partners with xAI to bring Grok to over a billion users

    Technology technology
    36
    1
    38 Stimmen
    36 Beiträge
    456 Aufrufe
    R
    So you pay taxes to Putin. Good to know who actually helps funding the regime. I suggest you go someplace else. I won't take this from a jerk from likely one of the countries buying fossil fuels from said regime, that have also supported it after a few falsified elections starting in 1996, which is also the year I was born. And of course "paying taxes to Putin" can't be even compared to what TG is doing, so just shut up and go do something you know how to do, like I dunno what.