“Shitlibs”
Weird fuckin’ american paradigm. I’ve simultaneously been called a shitlib, a tankie, a communist and a capitalist. Piss.
The more someone throws around words like “socialist” or “lib” as an insult pretty but invariably can’t even define socialism or liberalism, never mind articulate what about them they dislike.
What a CEO or founder of a company does off the clock. Brave, Mozilla, Mullvad, Proton, GrapheneOS - I just don’t care. If I picked a product off of the CEO not being a dick, I wouldnt have any products or services to use.
The Brave one is hilarious because no one bothers to look into it. If they did, they would be embarrassed by how big of a deal they make of it. In like 2009, the current CEO made a one-time, $1000 donation to an anti-prop 8 campaign.
That’s it.
No donations to any groups since.
Brave wasn’t even a thing when he did it.
He’s also the same guy who created JavaScript, yet no one seems to have an issue using that.
Just a giant game of telephone where people hate someone because they were told they should hate them.
anything having to do with celebrities
Being upset that female characters in video games don’t have huge boobs and asses and the intelligence of a watermelon.
Insert latest corporate shareholder or position event here:
I have found almost none of the backlash or headlines that people on the internet, especially Lemmy, want you to be pissed off about, annoying to me enough to actually Care about.
Won’t say.
Why’d you comment? Wanted to take up space?
It’s enraging, isn’t it?
Eh, I don’t care that much.
You should post about it on https://sh.itjust.works/post/64229672
Chat Control. It’s not evil EU trying to read everyone’s messages. It’s EU working with various groups to solve an issue, like they do all the time.
Nah, it’s clueless actionism.
👍
Yes, various groups trying to solve a problem that barely exists by creating problems orders of magnitude worse but gives them more power. But surely there are no nefarious motivations there.
Online grooming barely exists? I’ve seen reports that it’s quite common in Roblox for example but I don’t have kids so I don’t know.
I am not saying online grooming is not a problem, but as you said, it happens on public spaces like Roblox, where predators can find children. Chat Control is unnecessary to monitor those. Random youtubers have been able to do that. No need to build a massive spy apparatus. Instead, of adressing this, Chat Control tries to pry open secure communications like Signal used by journalists, protesters, etc. Applications where grooming is not much of an issue as you only communicate with your existing contacts.
Chat Control ignores the rampant grooming in plain sight while trying to spy on communications where it is rare. So tell me, am I paranoid to think they have different motivation to breach those and are only using “protecting kids” as an excuse?
So tell me, am I paranoid to think they have different motivation to breach those and are only using “protecting kids” as an excuse?
I don’t think you’re paranoid, more uninformed.
Chat Control proposed two things:
-
Some, let’s call them, ‘anti-grooming’, common sense rules by default. They propose identifying high risk services in which you can for example search users by age and send them private messages. Those services would be required to do things like age verification to separate children from adults. If services don’t want to do age verification they have to implement measures like not letting users send private messages to everyone, not being able to search by age, limiting what info is visible to other users (pictures? names? locations? interests?), limiting public spaces (do you need common, public chats in Roblox or can it be limited to chats with friends only?) and so on. I think this is way better than hoping youtube vigilantes will look for pedos for views.
-
The other thing they are trying to solve is using e2ee messaging apps to distribute CSAM. Here they don’t want to touch encryption in any way and the proposal is to let providers voluntarily scan media client side. This was proposed as mandatory at first but was changed later. This is the part people don’t like as it indirectly forces providers to scan media client side. Nobody likes it but no one proposed any other solution to limit distribution of CSAM.
So what you’re describing is not very accurate. No one is proposing large scale monitoring using some massive spy apparatus. They do actually propose common sense solutions implemented by individual services (how you search users, who can you contact, etc). No one is also proposing breaking e2ee and monitoring messages, the most controversial part is about client side scanning of media. And the original proposal was different but after talking with many privacy groups it was changed. Now it’s very close to what privacy advocates are proposing with the only problematic part being the client side scanning. Privacy advocates simply propose to ignore the issue of distributing CSAM and EU still wants to address it.
If you think client side scanning is not a massive spy apparatus, you don’t understand the technology. There is no such thing as purely on device CSAM detection. See Discord banning people for minecraft inventory pictures if you need an example how broken the automated part of the technology is. It’s just sending messagis to law enforcement to read with extra steps.
As for the first part, Chat Control is not mandating age verification. It’s identity verification. If a beraucrat decides lemmy.world is a risk, you will have to provide an ID to post here regardless of your age and the instance admin will have to use their limited abilities to store and protect them. Good luck with that shit. That is a spy apparatus. And it is unnecessary. The conversations are public. Instead of just letting the predators find a different place, create a better reporting system. Or hell, at least make it an actual age verification using Zero Knowledge proofs. But they don’t want to do that, they want our identities.
Same thing with CSAM, you don’t get born knowing the phone number of your local CSAM distributor. Law enforcement can monitor for people advertising. They can pose as interested people or distributors. There is no reason to break encryption over this. Nor is it even possible while open source exists.
If you think client side scanning is not a massive spy apparatus, you don’t understand the technology.
I think scanning of media is not a massive spy apparatus. Breaking e2ee and scanning of all communications would be. If they want to monitor journalists and protesters by only scanning media they are doing shit job at building their spy apparatus.
The conversations are public.
No they are not, most of social media (if not all) has some direct message mechanism.
Instead of just letting the predators find a different place, create a better reporting system.
Most kids don’t report those things. This is part of the problem and Chat Control does address that by mandating better reporting systems.
As for the first part, Chat Control is not mandating age verification.
It does:
“”" 3.Providers of interpersonal communications services that have identified, pursuant to the risk assessment conducted or updated in accordance with Article 3, a risk of use of their services for the purpose of the solicitation of children, shall take the necessary age verification and age assessment measures to reliably identify child users on their services, enabling them to take the mitigation measures. “”"
Chat Control only talks about identifying child users. I don’t see anything there that mandates storing of IDs. Can you point me to the relevant part of the legislation?
Same thing with CSAM, you don’t get born knowing the phone number of your local CSAM distributor. Law enforcement can monitor for people advertising. They can pose as interested people or distributors.
And I’m sure law enforcement already does that. As I said, privacy advocates think that’s enough and this problem should not be addressed by EU. EU think it should. Chat Control was not approved yet, there are discussions to find the right solution.
You are reading the text and not thinking what it looks like in reality.
I think scanning of media is not a massive spy apparatus. Breaking e2ee and scanning of all communications would be. If they want to monitor journalists and protesters by only scanning media they are doing shit job at building their spy apparatus.
What happens when the scan identifies an image as CSAM? If the answer is notify authorities with unencrypted chat, then it is a spy apparatus. The false positives are high enough that they will get to read countless innocent conversations and there are ways to intentionally induce false positives if you want specific conversations. And if it does not report, then what does it do?
No they are not, most of social media (if not all) has some direct message mechanism.
Those are rarely available to strangers by default and I have no issue in banning direct DMs to strangers.
Most kids don’t report those things. This is part of the problem and Chat Control does address that by mandating better reporting systems.
So there is one decent thing in this law, let’s pass all the privacy invasive stuff as well. /s I have no issue with better reporting, but the chat monitoring needs to go.
Chat Control only talks about identifying child users. I don’t see anything there that mandates storing of IDs. Can you point me to the relevant part of the legislation?
Sure, so how is a company supposed to implement it? Only to government issuing IDs can realistically provide Zero Knowledge proofs. If they don’t support this option, companies can’t really use it. And companies generally need to keep records that prove they are complying with the law, which is again impossible while preserving privacy unless the government helps.
And I’m sure law enforcement already does that.
Just google how underfunded to agencies responding to existing reports are. They are not doing anywhere near what they could.
Chat Control was not approved yet, there are discussions to find the right solution.
The reason it did not pass so far is because of privacy advocates spreading awareness of how fucking broken the law is and creating push back. The time to consult experts and improve the law was in the EU commission, before putting it to vote in the Parliament. Clearly they did not care to protect privacy until people pushed back. The commission and other supporters are still looking for ways to pass it without addressing the privacy issue. See recent emergency measure passed using vacations to bypass a proper vote.
I am sure there are people that support the bill with good intentions but I have lost any fate in the EU to care for the privacy of its citizens.
-
Sam Altman says “…”, Tim Sweeney is against “…”
I scroll past a headline like that every single day.
People want me to be outraged at Taylor Swift simply for being a billionaire and possibly having questionable people at her wedding. Is she morally perfect? No. I wish she didn’t fly around on her private jet so much. But she is a much better person morally than most rich people. She is reportedly a really kind person to work for, cares about her employees, pays well, and donates a lot to charity. Could she do more? Sure, but we could all do more. Almost everyone could be giving away more of their money to help others. And the outrage over her having a big wedding that supposedly blocked off traffic and stuff. It was a holiday weekend, it can’t have been that big of an inconvenience. How dare she rent out a space that anyone can rent out for a big party. She paid for the security too, contrary to claims that taxpayers paid for it.
Yeah, I’m not going to be mad at a generally kind and generous person simply for being rich. A large part of her billionaire status is her intellectual property. Should she not own the rights to the music she created?
The music she created? I’d be shocked if she wrote even half of it.
Scoff all you want, but she wrote almost all of her songs. Which probably IS unusual these times, and I was surprised too when I looked it up. But she’s actually still working, training to dance, singing, writing lyrics and music, touring, traveling, entertaining.
Gen AI, half the internet seems to think it’s literally satan.
Yes a lot of the “art” it produces is shit, but the internet was already full of shitty Alegria “art”.
And there’s the votes telling you you’re wrong to not hate AI
Come on man, the internet is telling you to hate AI!
/s
lots of other problems
i should know <- some kind of robot therianShitty art is so far down the list of reasons that people have to not like AI. You either don’t understand the argument against it, or you’re intentionally downplaying it.
Usually anything to do with celebrity drama. While it’s not that common on Lemmy, the rest of the pop internet seems infatuated with what actor/musician threw shade or dissed some other, or which diva is being treated SO unfairly…
those are the same people who cause all the drama in their own lives.
they love the celebrity stuff because it validates their own misery and poor choices. they view themselves as the poorly treated diva.
A lot of celebrity gossip is rooted in the true crime aspect of it. Like the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives drama - one of the women was literally throwing metal barstools at her children while fighting with her partner. The outrage stems from people wanting her held accountable in some form. And the networks know that outrage will spur more views.
I don’t see it any different than indulging in sports gossip or even Fediverse related gossip (Tesseract incident, anyone?). People like to indulge in some judgment and outrage at others. It can be unhealthy, but mostly I think it’s a rather neutral, human thing to do.
Pizza tastes great. Pineapples taste great. The math solves itself.
I don’t eat Hawaiian pizza because of the pineapple. It’s because I don’t like ham. Pineapple is great
If you havent, you should try my favorite 2 topping combo which is pepperoni and pineapple.
Or jalapeño and pineapple
Everything you can think of probably. I would prefer a lot of things to be different but I’m happier when I’m just minding my own business and the world won’t get any better from me being outraged.
Cultural appropriation.
So… You’re offended. People are living out of their cars now. I’m more worried about that.
Also, the person being offended usually isn’t even from the target culture. They’re being vicariously offended on behalf of somebody else, when the actual members of that culture usually dgaf or like it.
You’re not wrong.
Don’t get me started on “Latinx.”
Oh I’ll happily get started on that one. I’m latina. Latinos very rarely use latinx because it can’t be fucking pronounced in Spanish. If you must use a neutral version, latine is more common.
My understanding is that it was originally created in I think Puerto Rico?, but quickly got picked up and pushed by non-Hispanic (mainly white) people. To put it in perspective, 4% of the US Hispanic population uses it (2024)
Don’t use latinx
Ferrari Luce.
Sure it looks goofy but nobody whose opinion matters can afford it anyways. I similarly cannot afford it but I think it’s probably fine.
