On a possibly related note:

https://github.com/rauchg/doom-captcha

(via https://canitrundoom.org/ )

I don’t think you have the choice. Products that aren’t imported are made with parts that are imported. In fact, there will be products that have several layers of products tariffs in them, for example cars. Parts are made, assembled into bigger parts and ever bigger parts, and may cross the Mexican or Canadian border each time.

These tariffs are a monumental act of economic self harm. That’s what the stock market is saying. Stocks have (rational) value because you are entitled to a share of future profits. The stock market crashing tells you that the pros expects that a lot of value is not going to be created. Trillions of dollars will not be paid out to stock-owners, and further trillions will not be paid out as wages. The real wealth that is the other side of that money - all these new goods, cars, phones, TVs, dishwashers … - will not exist in the USA.

So, don’t worry about hitting them in the wallet.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on an American ball sack—for ever.

Maybe watch out for products from Russia and Belarus, as they are not included in the tariffs. This may start a new era of economic cooperation; putting the US in USSR. Ironically, Russia is still hit hard because of oil taking a nosedive.

Yeah, that’s another one of the deliberately deceptive talking points being spread.

First of all, average people did this. The dataset Books3 was created by a jobless individual named Shawn Presser using one of Aaron’s scripts. Later he shared it with Meta. What makes the difference for Shawn is that the legal department of Meta stands between him and the copyright industry. As far as I can tell, Shawn is way more average than Aaron in that he doesn’t rub shoulders with the likes of Sam Altman.

It’s interesting how this talking point works. Someone shills for the copyright industry against the interests of the average person. And the justification is that the copyright industry persecuted Aaron Swartz. That doesn’t make sense, does it?

I don’t see how this fair use case is different from those in the past. There’s a tech company defending. Organizations like the EFF or the Internet Archive issue supporting statements.

I don’t see the hypocrisy. The content industry is suing tech companies now just like they have in the past, and just like they sue individuals now and in the past.

If I had to guess at the cause of the difference, I’d say that there is a lot of money being spent on social media PR. But perhaps it also is a result of the right-ward shift of society. I wonder how much that has to do with propaganda by the content industry.

A dbzer0 user agitating against Fair Use? You a narc or something?

1. Get humped by a dog.
2. Whine like a bitch.

Academic publishing is dominated by for-profit giants like Elsevier and Springer. Calling their practice a form of thuggery isn’t so much an insult as an economic observation. Imagine if a book publisher demanded that authors write books for free and, instead of employing in-house editors, relied on other authors to edit those books, also for free. And not only that: The final product was then sold at prohibitively expensive prices to ordinary readers, and institutions were forced to pay exorbitant fees for access.

I’ve seen academics complain about AI training being Fair Use, while being completely aware of this. I can’t fathom how ideologically brainwashed someone has to be to support that system. They know it’s an entirely parasitic industry that makes fantastic profits by plundering research budgets. And yet, “ethics” demands that property owners be paid off.

There have been controversies about that sort of thing.

I know the Oscar-winning movie The Tin Drum as an example. The book by Günter Grass is a very serious, highly celebrated piece of German post-war literature. It takes place around WW2. The protagonist has the mind of an adult in the body of a child. I guess the idea is that he is the other way around from most people?

The movie was banned in Ontario and Oklahoma, for a time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum_(film)#Censorship

With European societies shifting right, I doubt such a movie could be made today, but we aren’t at a point where it would be outright illegal.

It’s not a gray area at all. There’s an EU directive on the matter. If an image appears to depict someone under the age of 18 then it’s child porn. It doesn’t matter if any minor was exploited. That’s simply not what these laws are about.

Bear in mind, there are many countries where consenting adults are prosecuted for having sex the wrong way. It’s not so long ago that this was also the case in Europe, and a lot of people explicitly want that back. On the other hand, beating children has a lot of fans in the same demographic. Some people want to actually protect children, but a whole lot of people simply want to prosecute sexual minorities, and the difference shows.

17 year-olds who exchange nude selfies engage in child porn. I know there have been convictions in the US; not sure about Europe. I know that teachers have been prosecuted when minors sought help when their selfies were being passed around in school, because they sent the images in question to the teacher, and that’s possession. In Germany, the majority of suspects in child porn cases are minors. Valuable life lesson for them.

Anyway, what I’m saying is: We need harsher laws and more surveillance to deal with this epidemic of child porn. Only a creep would defend child porn and I am not a creep.

If that’s what you want, you should join Facebook.

The fundamental thing to understand is that the internet - and really all information processing - is about copying. There is no such thing as “looking” at a profile or a post. The text and image data is downloaded to your device. You end up with multiple copies on your device.

Sending information out, but blocking people from storing it, is fundamentally a contradiction in terms.

Bsky - like Lemmy - made the choice to make the data widely available. It is available via API and does not need to be scraped. The alternative is to do it like Reddit or even Facebook or Discord. But they can’t stop scraping, either. They can make it slower and more laborious but not stop it. Services like Facebook protect the data as best as they can to “protect your privacy”. In reality, it’s about making it hard for you to leave the platform or anyone else to benefit from your data. Either way, you can trust Zuck to protect your data as if it was his own. Because it is.

A toy like that is easy to create and not that expensive to offer. Much more expensive than some JavaScript or CSS, but in the end it’s not that different.

I think people don’t really understand this whole scraping thing. For example, you can torrent all of Reddit until the API-change; all the comments, profiles, usernames, including now deleted stuff. There is a lot of outrage here over Reddit cracking down on these 3rd party tools. It’s difficult to see how that outrage over cracking down on 3rd party tools, fits with this outrage here over not cracking down on 3rd party tools.

Anyway, if someone want to archive all of Bluesky, they don’t need to offer some AI toy. They can just download the content via the API.

The FTC under Biden has begun to push back against tech monopolies.

I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.

EG 2 weeks ago, there was a post that had people calling for making robots.txt legally binding. Very disappointing.

No, just disappointed.

Wow. A copyright lawsuit where Lemmy isn’t rooting for the establishment. Won’t anyone think of the poor, starving artists?!