all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 61 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Meta does not want to comply? Well, fine them to kingdom come, and if they still don't come to heel, block them at IP level.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    there's not a single thing lost by blocking access to meta imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    the social media giant will not sign the European Union’s voluntary AI code of practice.

    Emphasis added. If the result of not signing a voluntary code of practice is massive fines and IP blocks, was it really "voluntary?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    The EU AI Act is the thing that imposes the big fines, and it's pretty big and complicated, so companies have complained that it's hard to know how to comply. So this voluntary code of conduct was released as a sample procedure for compliance, i.e. "if you do things this way, you (probably) won't get in trouble with regulators".

    It's also worth noting that not all the complaints are unreasonable. For example, the code of conduct says that model makers are supposed to take measures to impose restrictions on end-users to prevent copyright infringement, but such usage restrictions are very problematic for open source projects (in some cases, usage restrictions can even disqualify a piece of software as FOSS).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago

    I don't see the downside of blocking everything Meta.

  • source
  • nothing immediately makes me side with europe more than the phrase "meta takes hard line against"

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I’ve convinced a friend to stop using Facebook in the past week after getting him to pay attention to the algorithm feed and how it’s picking up on shit he’s talking about but not searching for, and increasing his anxiety. Including confiding private conversation he had with me. Feels good !demeta@programming.dev

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I have a question. Why do we see this every alternate week about META breaking a law, not agreeing to standards, hacking their way with loopholes and legislation. And STILLLL nothing ever bad happens to Meta?

    Why are they still existing? If any company causes depression to teenagers, Creates or aides genocide, Misuses data, How are they still existing?

    Are we daft? Or are the lawmakers? Or the government? Meta is evil. Period. They cant keep getting away with this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • One part of this is jurisdiction. I'm being very simplistic here and only have a vague sense of the picture, really (my own prejudice - I find just about everything about meta abhorrent)

    They are based in a country that's solely oritentated towards liberty - not fairness or common sense.

    There are other parts, of course, like lobbying, tax breaks and so on, but a big part is because they're not based in the EU.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    that the social media giant will not sign the European Union’s voluntary AI code of practice. His reasoning was stark: “Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI.”

    These rules, which take effect next month, are meant to help companies navigate compliance with Europe’s sweeping AI Act passed last year.

    🤦 And later then they complain about the difficulty to navigate the rules and about the fines, you bet?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I would love to see Europe ban/block the API endpoints that AI communicates over.

    Then ban all Meta endpoints if/when meta moves AI communication onto the same endpoints as non-AI communication.

    European laws are not perfect, but they at least make an effort to put the needs of the people ahead of corporations and the Parasite Class.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    The kneejerk reaction is gonna be "Meta bad", but it's actually a bit more complicated.

    Whatever faults Meta has in other areas, it's been mostly a good player in the AI space. They're one of the major reasons we have strong open-weight AI models today. Mistral, another maker of open AI models and Europe's only significant player in AI, has also rejected this code of conduct. By contrast, OpenAI a.k.a. ClosedAI has committed to signing it, probably because they are the incumbents and they think the increased compliance costs will help kill off competitors.

    Personally, I think the EU AI regulation efforts are a big missed opportunity. They should have been used to force a greater level of openness and interoperability in the industry. With the current framing, they're likely to end up entrenching big proprietary AI companies like OpenAI, without doing much to make them accountable at all, while also burying upstarts and open source projects under unsustainable compliance requirements.

  • source
  • EU:

    you’re done here

  • source
  • 7 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    In the 60s it was the atom bomb regulation they had to sign. A "few hours later" in 2025 it's the Ai regulation. My prediction 60 years from now, there will be a regulation of who an what you can do on Mars. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ok, well, guess it won’t be voluntary for much longer.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Would be so nice if Meta will be seen as hostile and blocked Europe wide. The problem is, this can be interpreted as blocking Free Speech. But is it really Free Speech to misuse peoples rights and steal their privacy, that is against the law?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Free speech is the right to say what you believe without facing legal consequences from the government, not the right to publish what ever other people say uncritically, especially when what they’re publishing is directly inciting real harm to the public.

    Their current moderation stance is akin to allowing people to shout “fire!” In a crowded public space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    That's one interpretation and implementation of free speech. The EU define it as "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." which would be very easy to argue includes public authorities altering the legality of receiving and/or imparting information via AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    As much as I agree, we need to think about the normies who, in many communities, only connect via cursed FB.

    That site should burn in hell but until Uncle Jim and Aunt Mel can use some place just as well it will harm when those walls fell.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Please just boot out Meta out of EU to make lives better

  • source