top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 202 points 1 year ago (18 children)

The anti-woke campaigner brought legal action against Meta – ... – after the company’s artificial intelligence chatbot falsely stated he took part in the riot at the US Capitol on 6 January, 2021, seeking $5 million in damages.

Hold up, you can a convince a chat bot to say something bad about you and then sue that company into giving you a job?

What the fuck is happening right now?

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 107 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    We're in the dumbest possible timeline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    That doesn't disprove my statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No, but it knocks a little wind out of the sail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    OK, but it's a really weird - and I think unhelpful - way for people to keep framing reality. Like we're trying to pretend it's just some story.

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

    Meta is one big scam is what I‘m taking away from the last decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 120 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    I’m about to get real mean to people still on FB/insta. Wtf will it take for you people to say no to a shitty social media website?

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    A lack of pictures of my extended family.

    Videos of my nieces figure skating are the primary reason I haven't deleted my account

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Try to get them to text them instead. Giant family text chains are a lot more fun (and chaotic) than generic social media.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -41 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yeah, text of his niece figure skating is the same thing as a video. Solid advice!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You can put videos in a text thread. I’m on a 31-person thread that has been active for about 15 years. I promise there’s no shortage of videos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    By "text" here, do you mean Apple chat, SMS, or some other platform?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    no that matters a lot. if it's imessage only it makes sense but if it's a combination of mms/rcs/imessage, someone is going to get images consisting of like four total pixels.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    email exists and isn't run by the worst people on earth

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Hotmail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail are all run by dirt bags.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Those aren't the only email providers, and using email is less harmful than using Facebook.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I haven't seen any real evidence to that effect. Shy of handing your bank number to scammers, the "Don't use your computer to do X, use it to do Y" consumerist internet activism never seems to impact anything. How Big Tech actually does business seems driven by FinTech investment far more than user engagement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I haven’t seen any real evidence to that effect.

    Do you accept that facebook is harmful to the world, or would I need to try to prove that? There's the time they tried to see if they could make people sad by adjusting the feed. (They could)

    If you accept that, it's a small step to "They benefit from having more users on their platform". More users means more engagement, which means more ads, and advertisers pay more money for those ads. No one's going to pay big bucks to advertise their stuff to an empty platform. Facebook's going to have a harder time selling user data and metadata if users aren't on there.

    Now, getting one family to stop using facebook is a drop in the bucket. But every family that leaves makes it easier for the next family to leave.

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

    Do you accept that facebook is harmful to the world

    Yes. But I believe it is harmful because of the way it has been leveraged to crowd out the public sector and strangle competitive private alternatives. It has become one wing of a massive tech sector cartel.

    If you accept that, it’s a small step to “They benefit from having more users on their platform”.

    That doesn't logically follow. No more than saying "Building more highways is bad for the environment, ergo the highway administrators benefit from having more cars on the road." You're looking at a problem of induced demand and concluding the problem is on the demand-side of the equation.

    Now, getting one family to stop using facebook is a drop in the bucket.

    It's one node in a massive web. And it's easy to say "Well, you have to do your part because ". But mostly it's just some random asshole on the internet telling me not to use my telephone because AT&T is run by a richer set of random assholes. There's no material benefit to me and no collective coordinated action that I'm seriously participating in.

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

    That doesn’t logically follow. No more than saying “Building more highways is bad for the environment, ergo the highway administrators benefit from having more cars on the road.” You’re looking at a problem of induced demand and concluding the problem is on the demand-side of the equation.

    What? Yes it does. Facebook needs users to generate revenue. With no users, they can't sell ads or user data. How else do you think they make money? Do you not think making money is a benefit for the owners of facebook?

    It’s one node in a massive web. And it’s easy to say “Well, you have to do your part because ”. But mostly it’s just some random asshole on the internet telling me not to use my telephone because AT&T is run by a richer set of random assholes. There’s no material benefit to me and no collective coordinated action that I’m seriously participating in.

    You're reminding me of Eleanor from the good place. Do you also litter? Refuse to return shopping carts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why the fuck is Eleanor something people should know? Use your words

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

    She's a very selfish person who doesn't care about other people. She only cares about what benefits her. So when someone says "there's no material benefit to me" they sound like that kind of asshole.

    Also it was a critically acclaimed show, not some obscure media.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 94 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] 50 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I really wish I could delete my Facebook and Instagram, but my late brother's account is on both and I really miss him. I try to do my part by not making content for the machine nor interact with the platform and only go on when I really miss my brother

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    My struggle for years has been quitting WhatsApp…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I never started using it. It's the cancer version of messaging.

    I sometimes get weird looks from people when I tell them I refuse to use it.

    Signal is the way to go.

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

    Man, I so wish I could do that. I felt I was finally in a position where I could leave once and for all. No groups for work or study stuff, just family and several mostly unused contacts. Surely my family would choose Signal rather than lose all contact. Then I got myself into a volunteering thing, and I need WhatsApp again (for groups and 1-on-1)

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

    I quit everything except whatsapp, it's virtually impossible without actually impacting my life negatively. Been trying and some friends have started using Signal, but most people don't.

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

    I guess it's all about choosing what each of us deems worse. "Do I want a saner life even if it means not having some convenience, or is this change going to mess with my life for little benefit?".

    7 years ago I told everyone I was leaving WhatsApp and moving to Signal on day X. Some installed signal and we started using that exclusive, some others didn't, and we stopped chatting, just did phone calls.

    Fast forward to today, most of the people in my life use Signal, some of them exclusively to use it with me, and the rest, I haven't missed (they call every now and then though).

    It is a scary move, 100%, but well worth it, in my opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Looks like the evil, shitty little brother of Technology Connections

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

    Zuckerberg is such a coward.

    He bends over backwards for even the slightest change in wind, like VR or a fascist govt. He dropped open-weight llama at the first experimental stumble.

    Mark my words, if a mega liberals got into power, he’d fire this guy and act as woke as can be.

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

    It's not cowardice, it's intentional. He wants a timeline where techno-lords with divine authority oversee their vassal states and nations are a thing of the past. Bending over for a fascist party is the fastest way to get there.

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

    I honestly think Zuck is more of a coward than the Palantir CEO and that techno feudalism crowd. He’s just so obviously insecure in all his decision making it’s unreal.

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

    Starbuck’s mission to bring “sanity back to corporate America”

    ugh, I can't with them

  • source
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I love the irony of people trying to make there AI's not gay.

    BROTHER

    TURING WAS GAY THE GODFATHER OF COMPUTERS.

    oh the irony

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    From the way American mega-corporations are going all-in on this, it seems like a long-term choice; so I think it’s one of two things: the shareholders are demanding that they go full republican (which isn’t happening AFAIK), or they’re trying to survive because they know something you don’t.

    Disclaimer: not a US citizen/resident, but sad to see this happening tbh.

    Edit: or it’s short-term and caused by Trump pressuring everybody to do controversial stuff in order to distract the public from the Epstein files.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    anti-LGBTQ+ conspiracy theorist

    That's so nice of him to be opposed to LGBTQ+ conspiracy theorists!

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Robby Starbuck

    That sounds like a name from some shitty fiction. Bobby Bucks you kidding me

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The US really is the #1 place for doublespeak huh?

    Do they can he concentration camps recreation camps too?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Meta seems to really want to overcorrect... they demanded Meta remove their diversity policies, so Meta said that they'd do one better and just start stringing people up in the office.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I feel like a lot of the anger at transexuals is because men don't want to be confused as women

    The ones with femine features who rely on their clothing and social norms to be identified as a man.

    If all I saw was the thumbnail, I probably would have unintentionally misgendered this piece of shit. They treat women like property so their main concern is if someone treats them like a woman.

    So they insist on a strict adherence to gender norms to avoid people confusing them with what they consider to be "lesser"

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Reactionaries decry "identity politics," because it's literally all they have; they're the ones pushing to make their list of prescribed identities the only socially acceptable ones.

    They loathe women who jump their station and get a "man's job." They're disgusted by trans people who won't accept their assignment to either pump out babies for the oligarchy or mainain white Christian supremacy. They're enraged by immigrants who "don't belong."

    The identity that they care about most though is "conservative." You can get away with anything so long as you fly that particular freak flag and pretend to apologize. They're narrow-minded bigots who should be ostracized in any civilized society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I mean, "both sides" act like the other is crazy, but it's all normal human variation.

    About 20% of people are going to be super into a leader who uses violence to obtain compliance, and are always ready to personally do the same.

    There's always been that slice of humanity and there always will be.

    It's just if we let that ~20% run the show, shit is going to suck for the other ~80%, and also a lot of that ~20%.

    We need to understand why they're like this so we can mitigate their influence on society on a larger scale. Or even better, get a "strong" progressive leader that gives them the warm and fuzzies they desperately need to stop being such pieces of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    “bOtH sIdEs” makes anyone sound really, really stupid when one side is building concentration camps

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    That's why I put it in quotation marks....

    But writing them off as evil idiots clearly didn't fucking work

    So maybe we should try what's most likely to work to stop the concentration camps, instead of what gives you the warm and fuzzies.

    Right?

    Or is being angry and fighting about shit more important to you than fixing things for the betterment of everyone?

    Because not all that 20% has an R by their name, and I'm pretty sure you just put yourself as an example of that

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

    When I read your comment it seemed like the blame was being cast at both sides. It’s important to me that everyone else on the internet who might see this thread knows that “both sides”ing gets shit on.

    Please carry on if you must.

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

    While that’s gotta be a big part of it, I’m not sure that’s the true source of their hatred and bigotry, though it’s obviously not the same for every bigot. I think it boils down to an even simpler insecurity. Not necessarily an insecurity with their own gender, but more a feeling of jealous insecurity when they see people who genuinely know who they are and have put in the work to figure themselves out. Gender is just the easiest part of their identity to hate. I don’t think that insecurity is necessarily conscious, though the hatred certainly is, it’s more an enviousness of someone who is obviously secure with themselves and their body.

    I had a similar reaction to the thumbnail. My first thought, before reading anything, was “huh, Meta found a lesbian who hates the rest of the LGBTQ community.”

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

    I mean, not to dig on the guy too much...

    But look at that picture and imagine how he was treated growing up in a red area. It's a pretty safe bet that he had gender norms forced on him since a young age because he looks ambiguous.

    Now he wants to do the same to everyone else.

    Like, he's a piece of shit, undoubtedly.

    But we need to understandwhy he's a piece of shit, even if he's irredeemable.

    Because if we don't understand it, we can't stop it from happening to the next generation.

    People are animals, were not innately good, we need socialized. And anyone who thinks lack of socialization isn't a root cause of most of our problem, they're frankly not paying attention.

    It's not hard to figure this out, but it needs logic and critical thinking. Writing them off as a monster just needs emotion. It's easier, but practically ineffective That's why we keep doing this over and over. It's like losing weight. It's not something you do from six months and quit. Fighting bigotry/fascism is a lifelong battle, even when it's easy. We have to keep fighting.

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

    it's close, but what your observation actually shows is their hypocrisy.

    most transphobia is caused by bioessentialism. people think that there's something "inate" to you assigned gender/sex at birth. to them, that makes them special and fitting of a certain role.

    when you tell people that you can change genders, they freak out, because that means that the traits they think they have isn't inherent to their gender at birth (being assigned a man at birth doesn't make you manly inherently).

    this is why when you see a lot of terfs, for example, justifying why trans women aren't women, they use things like the ability to give birth, having to take care of the household, primary/secondary sexual characteristics to justify themselves. they cling to the idea that afab people have something inherent that amab people don't, so that they feel like they have those traits, and that it makes them better.

    Taking the example of a cis man that has feminine features and that hides it, because they feel insecure and need to prove their masculinity. There is nothing wrong with that, admit that you don't lie to yourself, by saying that your "inherent masculinity" gives you more masculine traits that someone who's afab could never have.

    TLDR: people who are insecure about their gender prop themselves up by attaching themselves to inherent traits that they think others could never have. anything that goes against that breaks their mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    15 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    3 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    2 comments in c/BoycottUnitedStates@europe.pub view that post