Yeah.

There’s waaay worse things you can catch.

Yeah.

I mean I didn’t buy $15 in bitcoin 15 years ago (have never bought any, never will), and I’m not obsessed about it.

Is it really any different for this guy?

I dislike it.

Pretty sure my instance blocks it.

I believe it’s counter productive and stifles engagement.

I don’t necessarily dislike “AI” but I reserve the right to be derisive about inappropriate use, which seems to be pretty much every use.

Using AI to find pertoglyphs in Peru was cool. Reviewing medical scans is pretty great. Everything else is shit.

If it doesn’t work then quick cheap and easy I’d pointless.

I’ll make you dinner every night for free but one night a week it will make you ill. Maybe a little maybe a lot.

That’s only true in a general sense. Regardless a key component of “doing science” is to reproduce the results of others.

You raise a good point.

I’m much the same in that I just refuse to watch anything with ads. They really are dystopian and weird.

I also get that same feeling when I see someone just grinding through youtube ads, but people that do that just don’t seem to have any awareness of the interaction - it’s just part of the show.

The weirdest of all is when people (usually brave browser enthusiasts?) try to claim that “some” ads are actually a good thing because it makes them aware of some product they actually desire which they wouldn’t have been aware of otherwise. I’ll take blissful ignorance thanks.

So yes, I can imagine people doing this stuff without really thinking about it.

There’s just no way I’m ever going to do this.

Honestly, I’d rather go forage for twigs and berries than interact with ads.

Naming things is complicated.

It’s not really a case where some organisation has the authority to name something. Rather people just call something a name, and organisations adopt that name.

That’s not how science & research works.

We test the things we think we know and publish our findings.

Settle down mate.

I didn’t say defaced websites are going to take down the government.

My implication was that it would be more effective than ranting on social media.

Yeah. I’ve only spent a few moments skimming through the linked article but if you were part of a legitimate hacktivism group planning a significant operation why would you publish this statement ?

It’s really just spooky hyperbole - as though written by an adolescent that want’s to sound scary and powerful.

I would absolutely love to see hacktivists cause some chaos, and maybe even some real financial harm.

I’m not going to write off hacktivism so quickly.

Even if it’s just a few defaced websites now and then, that’s a whole lot more effective than any other sort of activism I’ve seen to date.

No.

That’s just a silly metaphor.

Suggesting that dems would win more votes by being further left is contrary to established political science.

Sure ok but in a democracy the presumption is that law makers have the support of the public.

In this specific case most (maybe all?) Australian state’s and territories have already enacted similar laws, the federal law just reinforces them. That doesn’t really seem tyrannical?

It’s not really an assumption. Clearly, education and awareness has been insufficient.

That’s a fair point. I didn’t really post it thinking “this anecdote supports this law”. I just think it’s worth remembering the insidious manner in which these organisations encroach on society.

Obviously laws are intended to be policed through governmental force, but they’re also a communication regarding what a society considers acceptable.

For example, if a society legislates that the age of consent is 16, then people being charged with statutory rape is only a small part of the impact of that law. In Australia we literally have police giving presentations in schools to ensure that teenagers are aware of the laws that exist to protect them, and how something that might seem innocent to a 15 year old (like sending your crush a photo of your boobs or something), can have dire consequences. In summary, the existence of the law is society standing together and sending a very clear message that some behaviors are unacceptable, a formalisation of social intolerance if you will.

Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they’re gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but “soft” social intolerance very obviously is inadequate.

The thing is, these groups don’t start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.

They couldn’t win an election as diet republicans.

They’re not going to win if they move further left.

That’s just in this term though.

There’s a ratchet effect over many decades.