Good argument but if the guy uploading it would be in another country this law couldn't be enforced. Basically it's an unenforceable standard. To insist on enforcing it could lead to draconian measures.

The article mentions upload filters but that then again create a large burden. This burden requires more work or more money. Which leads to a centralization or monopolization of the internet. Which would be in the interest of social media corporation who can shoulder the burden.

In the future the ethical issues of porn could be solved by investing in and creating a near perfect AI porn model that can serve all our degenerate needs WITHOUT requiring humans to take their clothes off. Basically ethically sourced synthetic "vegan" porn that is created for your on demand in your own home. And then you can ban all the real porn because the demand for it will plummet. Of course there will still be people who get off on the abuse instead of on the fantasy.

Yeah. Worst offender is r/climatechange which is still moderated by a "both sides" climate skeptic. It's practically aiding genocide / omnicide.
Unfortunately lemmy doesn't have good solution to fracturing and default instances either.

Ironically, someone have a non-paywall link?

I just want a holodeck future without having to pay by the hour to DisneComBroSonyFlixMount.

I just want to say that I'd absolutely love a dog that is genetically engineered to eat vegan food. Not just be able to survive off it but actually like it. But still retain it's instinct as a guard dog / social hunter.

"You rape one child and you get booed at the olympics!"
-- some hypothetical case, hopefully /s

Thanks for the info. But lets say you want to train a (future) AI to spot and tag disinformation and misinformation. You'd need to use and curate actual data from social media sites and articles.

If copyright is extended to learning from and analyzing publicly available data, such an AI will only be possible by licensing that data. Which will be monetize to maximize profit, first some lump sum, then later "per gb" and then later "per use".

I'm sure open source AI will make due and for many applications there is enough free data, but I can imagine a lot of cases where there wont. Anything that requires "commercially successful" media, articles, newspapers, screenplays, movies, books, social media posts and comments, images, photos, video clips...

We're basically setting up a world where the intellectual wealth of our civilization is being transformed into a commodity and then will be transferred into the hands of a few rich capitalists.

And even if there is acceptable amount of free data, if the principle is that data needs to be specifically licensed to learn and train and derive AI works from it - that makes free data use expensive too. It needs to be specifically vetted and is still vulnerable to be sued for mistakes or outrageous claims of copyright. Similar to patents, the uncertainty requires higher capitalization for any startup to defend against lawsuits.

Just a little bit of feedback. Creative new language can be fun... but the headline is completely incomprehensible to me!

I often feel annoyed when checking out new communities that create their own "elitist" lingo or abbreviations to "save time". It doesn't save time for the reader!

BTW coded language is also a warning sign for cults :D

PS: Also maybe a better slang might be fucar (from fuck-cars)

The Israeli soldiers seem to be murderers and killers who shoot wildly at the slightest provocation. They probably deliberately escalated this protest too.

Israel is a fascist regime that should face harsh sanctions.

Yeah that's my main problem with the article, it argues "as if" it was all but inevitable. As if something could be done. As soon as you have for profit motivation of social media, it's all but inevitable that enshittification ensues. That obscures the real problem.

You want a website that is run non-profit for users and somewhat democratically. But they shy away from that conclusion.

The joke is of course that "paying for copyright" is impossible in this case. ONLY the large social media companies that own all the comments and content that has accumulated by the community have enough data to train AI models. Or sites like stock photo libraries or deviantart who own the distribution rights for the content. That means all copyright arguments practically argue that AI should be owned by big corporations and should be inaccessible to normal people.

Basically the "means of generation" will be owned by the capitalists, since they are the only ones with the economic power to license these things.

That is basically the worst case scenario. Not only will the value of work diminish greatly, the advances in productivity will also be only accessible to big capitalists.

Of course, that is basically inevitable anyway. Why wouldn't they want this? It's just sad seeing the stupid morons arguing for this as if they had anything to gain.

Well you're just asking an economic question, are the costs worth the benefits?

I'd argue that linux will never be a good or user friendly operating system without case insensitive filenames.

That isn't an opinion but could be verified through scientific study of how confused people act. You don't even need computers, just ask someone to get the "something SomeTHing" from a labeled box in a cupboard. Presumably science would show that case insensitive naming of things is always less confusing when humans actually use the system.

The truth is that programmers enjoy writing code far more than reading code. And especially to open source developers "usability" is a dirty word. It's not about the value of a thing, it's about the beauty of how it is done.