Similar to copyright, enforcement requires surveillance and empowers censorship. But worse than copyright, it is directly aimed at information about people. So that is what gets surveilled and censored.

Of course, there are positive uses, such as disappearing revenge porn. But in practice, it will always favor the rich and powerful who have the resources to actively manage their image. I don’t believe it is worth the massive surveillance and censorship apparatus, even before one gets to the obvious potential for misuse.

Have you heard of the recent Russmedia case?

How did free speech help when the Nazis humiliated jews publicly in the 1930s?

How did it help taking “jew-baiters” like Julius Streicher to court during the Weimar Republic? Obviously it didn’t.

It seems obvious that I want the state to prevent hate speech, especially against minorities.

You want the state to act against hate speech coming from the elected head of state. What about that seems like a good plan?

You can’t convince people that Trump is a bad guy, and so you want the state to go after the bad guys. Maybe you can convince people that the state should smash bad guys. It’s not hard. But Trump is in charge of the state and not you. He’ll decide who’s a bad guy.

Really good. I wouldt have given full marks. Semi-precious gemstone isn’t good enough. Too much reliance on the pronunciation. Good pun, though, I feel. Very groan.

Nono, you’re thinking of circumference. This is about a semi-precious gemstone in the shape of a small, domesticated mustelid.

ETA: Maybe it’s too hard. I am thinking of a …

Nono, you’re thinking of circumlocution. This is about building a wall around a besieged city.

Nono, you’re thinking of a convention. This is about a psychological treatment that makes gay men like women.

Yeah, he has his own Mastodon instance. I was trying to make a different point, though.

People couldn’t even agree to keep Trump away from government, even though that’s a no-brainer. If you react by trying to build a consensus that some people should be banned from social media, you may get that consensus. But it won’t be Trump who is banned. That is a no-brainer, too.

It’s shockingly fascist thinking, actually.

It is real. There is a lot of hypocrisy, particularly among the right. But the difference between Europe and the US is stark.

Compare the criticism of the DMCA or Google’s Content ID to this affair. It’s on completely different levels.

As a European, I’ve really come around to a more American view of Free Speech.

Over the last few years, we get more and more laws requiring more and more surveillance and censorship to protect copyright, stop hate speech, enforce GDPR, … We’re building up this infrastructure and the population thinks it’s fine. The courts go along and ask for more.

What is going to happen when a European Trump comes to power? You think it’s terrible that Big Tech goes along with Trump? That Must bought Twitter? We ain’t seen nothing yet.

the Italian law is overly broad here, but that doesn’t excuse this behaviour.

This behavior = Going to court.

And who is going to ban Trump from Twitter?

The assumption seems to be that an LLM can’t figure out a manual or source code. If it can’t, then you have to pay people. But that’s not a universally valid assumption.

You can’t exactly feed it a manual and expect it to extrapolate or understand (for that matter “what manual).

You can do that to a degree (RLVR). They are also paying human experts. But that’s the situation now. Who knows how it will be in a couple more years. Maybe training AIs will be like writing a library, framework, …

Good pitch. You could also ask people to help out with the more expensive computations. Say, adding alt text.

In the client, you wouldn’t need to be sorting and running extensive calculations on all data. You could, e.g, build the front-page by indexing/scoring posts and comments that have been created since your last visit with a hard cap on some time window (last 48h) or total data points (e.g, keep only the most recent 10k objects in a local hot database, freeze/archive everyhing else.)

Absolutely. There’s a lot you can do. The “For You” Feed on Bluesky is quite instructive. https://bsky.app/profile/spacecowboy17.bsky.social/post/3mb2r5qei322a

But when you’re talking about sending a lot more data to clients, you really need to consider what that means for the internet bill of instance owners.

https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/1926661#graph

Stick a fork in it.

Embrace content sorting and filtering algorithms, but on the client side, with optional control by the user.

You can only filter and sort what was downloaded by the client. So that runs into resource constraints.

Standardize tags on all content. So many of the different ways different platforms classify or organize content can be implemented as tags, which increases interoperability between them.

I’m so with you. https://xkcd.com/927/

Transferable user identity (between instances)

User identity and authentication as separate service from social network instance

That’s more the ATproto/Bluesky vision.

The EU does not have the military capacity to protect Taiwan.

That’s not mentioning that the EU is not a military alliance. That’s the first political challenge to tackle.

Anyhow, the channel ‘Asianometry’, has a video covering the physics of EUV machines. They are an incredible linchpin of our modern world.

So true. This stuff is absolutely mind-blowing. Especially if you are old enough to remember how some of that seemed like almost unsurmountable problems. Now the solution are used in mass production.

It’s a myth that the GDPR is a useful tool in such cases. You know the expression “protected by copyright”? That’s how lawyers protect data.

The GDPR grants people rights over data concerning them, similar to how copyright grants rights over data. That means 2 things.

1. It’s rarely obvious that some data processing is illegal. It’s not obvious if it happens without consent. But even so, you often don’t need explicit consent to use someone’s data. EG when we write about French president Macron, then that is Macron’s data under the GDPR. Of course, you don’t need his consent to discuss or report on politics, and so you usually don’t need his consent to discuss his person.

2. Enforcement is difficult and expensive. Think about the problems the copyright industry has. Surveillance tools like Content ID can at least rely on knowing what exactly they are looking for. Besides, much of the world has similar laws supported by influential industries. Little chance to do that for GDPR.

Basically, using GDPR to protect actual secrets is like using copyright for the purpose.

ONCE AND FOR ALL!

/futurama