Constant Comment

I don’t fault him at all. If you’re in the entertainment industry (and want to stay in it), a Twitter presence is pretty much required. Online posting isn’t just a hobby, it’s part of your job, and Twitter is where the audience is.

Or maybe an abbreviated hash of the text of their specifications?

What? This is bullshit. There are a bunch of national parks in Michigan. Pretty significant ones.

Why are you booing them? They’re right!

It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”

It’s not that hard.

Fuck the RIAA: The artists should hold the rights to their music, not the publishers.

Fuck AI: The rights-holders (which ought to be the artists) should be able to distribute their work without fear that a bot will be allowed to use it to compete against them.

I just don’t see a healthy creative culture where you don’t push both buttons.

Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL

Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!

Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”

Article: literally has a section explaining how

Edit:

Replies: “Yeah, but that’s just a summary. I’ll believe it when they explain in full detail.”

Article: literally has a link to the detailed explanation

Well yeah. I mean, the big companies hire psychologists to conduct user studies to maximize time on device, and they model their user experience after variable reward schedules from slot machines. Seems obvious that they’re nefarious.

I just have no idea how you can effectively regulate big tech.

At every corner, the fundamental dynamic of big tech seems to be: Do the same exploitative, antisocial things that we decided long ago should be illegal… but do it through indirect means that make it difficult or impossible to regulate.

If you change the definition of employment so that gig-work apps like Uber become employers, they’ll just change their model to avoid the new definition.

If you change the definition of copyright infringement so that existing AI systems are open to prosecution, they’ll just add another level of obfuscation to the training data or something.

I’m glad they’re willing to do something, but there has to be a more robust approach than this whack-a-mole game we’re playing.

Edit: And to be clear, I am also concerned about the collateral damage that any regulation might cause to the grassroots independent stuff like Lemmy… but I think that’s pretty unlikely. The political environment in the US is such that it’s way, way more likely that we just do nothing – or a tiny little token effort – and we just let Meta/Google/whoever fully colonize our neurons in the end anyway.

Silly goose, you don’t own Windows — you license it.

If Miyamoto is succeeded by someone with Gabe’s pro-consumer philosophy, Nintendo could dominate.

Sony and Microsoft are too busy doing the private equity playbook.

Error: Challenge already accepted on your behalf

Are we looking from the perspective of the user or the wall?

It is kinda brilliant though, the way they set it up.

If you don’t like the joke, you can always fall back to the meta level: this is a 40-something dad recalling how dumb and cringe-worthy he and his friends were in their 20s.

Get involved with Represent.Us, the site that was linked to.

They have a pretty good strategy, and they have been making progress.

Governance is discouraging because it’s complex. And when things are complex, it’s difficult to see progress and it’s easy to predict that there will be problems.

It’s also difficult (and unrewarding) to have serious conversations about this stuff on social media.

The posts get too long, with no satisfying simplistic conclusion, and even if you make an incredible magnum opus of a post that acknowledges enough complexity to be realistic while also being short and snappy enough to catch people’s attention… it drops off of the trending posts algorithm after a day.

For some reason people in art believe they don’t have to compete like every other individual creating a business

If you think art is about selling a product, what’s the point of being alive?

Really bad graphic design overall. They might as well have used WordArt.

Interacting with people whose tone doesn’t match their words may induce anxiety as well.

Have they actually proven this is a good idea, or is this a “so preoccupied with whether or not they could” scenario?

I’m gonna do the most annoying thing in the world here, and just tell you to go watch Finding The Money. I feel like that’s a dick move in 99% of circumstances, but I did explicitly start this thread with the notion that after watching that documentary… I felt like these were misleading terms. So if you wanna discuss whether they are misleading terms given that context, it might be useful to share that same context.

I’m down to talk more afterwards. You’ve been a good pen pal.