deliriousdreams

That’s not something I’ve seen suggested before but it is an interesting way to go about it.

I’m doing my part.

So you’ll give attribution to scientists, but not artists? Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

I made a second comment where I specified but okay.

The main issue with it is using it to further surveillance state ID laws for social media. Meta didn’t do “enough to protect children”, but the real story here is that they knew full well exactly what their algorithms and platforms were doing and embraced it because keeping kids (and adults) depressed and unhappy left them in a position to make boatloads of money off them.

The other issue I have with it is how little they have to pay per infraction.

In plenty of places (in the US) it’s the exact same companies doing both. Mack Towing is a pretty good example. The police where I live use them to tow vehicles that are illegally parked or considered abandoned. Those places charge a fee ($400 per day) to the person who owns the vehicle and the fee must be paid before the vehicle will be returned to the customer. They really don’t only deal in cash (although I can understand why they might not take credit card payments in this eventuality because of the risk of a chargeback).

What do you mean they’re cash only? I’ve paid by card (credit card even) to have my car towed when it just died while sitting in traffic, and again when I needed to move a tool box. What in the world?

Thanks.

Have you read the whistle blower’s book? Or even just the exerpts from it that have been floating around for ages?

I’m curious, because it’s clear to me that the C-Suit c-suite at Meta and companies like it absolutely do employ some really shitty people, but at the same time, that doesn’t mean you can paint the janitor with the same brush as the lean in woman who made her personal assistant but lingerie and model it in her home for her. Or tried to force another woman to cuddle with her while she was pregnant.

So what I’m saying is, I don’t agree with the sentiment that everyone who works there is a power mad executive intent on algorithmic domination of the internet, and for at least some of the programmers in question a job is a job.

I will say that is different if they know what’s going on and have the proper ability to make the decision to fight against such a thing.

But I question where your line of complicity starts and ends here.

I guess I’m also pointing out that part of what makes meta properties particularly attractive to pedophiles is the same thing that makes it attractive to other online criminals and it’s the encryption.

I think this might ignore something else video image generation is good for which is propaganda.

Fake or highly edited video of strikes in Iran, random video circulating online proporting that the Netanyahu hand videos, and random videos of Israeli strikes on Palestine (which I assume are to discredit actual video of the atrocities happening there), have been going viral for awhile now.

Advertising is probably one of the few industries that can use image generation and video generation via AI LLM in a way that would actually cut costs but the downside is people are increasingly militantly against ads and they are against AI generated content including ads, so this isn’t likely to become the reality any time soon.

If the McDonald’s ad and others like it had been better vetted for AI uncanny valley aspects and hallucinations that cause trucks to transform into short bus versions of themselves mid ad spot etc, the public might not have paid attention at all.

And lots of those same advertising firms are using AI to their benefit behind the scenes to purchase ad space. But using AI in ads in a public facing way is a dream out of reach for them for now because they bungled it so bad.

Are you suggesting that we should be able to criminally prosecute people who build end to end encryption software and tools? Or algorithms that find people you may know? Because that seems to be key to the Meta lawsuit as far as they are involved. That and the fact that Meta deliberately mislead the public about the safety of the website for kids. Because social media as it exists today isn’t really safe for children and a best the people responsible for that are the executives who made the decision to lie accountable.

But your average programmer isn’t designing tools for the purpose of making kids less safe. They aren’t designing tools for the purpose of being addictive. And they aren’t designing tools for predators. They happen to have designed tools used by predators because of the flaws in the design and the fact that their executives found those flaws to be advantageous to their bottom line so they played them up. Leaned in if you will.

It was literally part of the leak in 2021 that they had discovered that their algorithm had certain effects and the C-Suit literally went about making sure they could use that for monetary gain to keep people on the site and scrolling. Not just young users, but users of all ages.

The main thing is that it’s really easy to social engineer on a social media website where people are encouraged to give out all kinds of information that can be used against them in social engineering attacks. That, combined with the addiction fostered there and the encrypted chat methods owned by Meta and used by quite a bit of the world en masse is what created this situation.

Just curious if the terminal for the bank tellers, ATM’s and Point of sale card readers that run on Linux, android, or windows have to have this.

You can tell the people who wrote this bill have literally no idea what they’re doing.

Oh I was literally just making a joke. I wouldn’t be surprised.

It was flying in their airspace and it didn’t identify itself. So they shot the ~black man~ drone out of the sky.

I’m not necessarily bothered that it happened to Valve. I honestly do see the other commenters point about the secondary market Valve runs as part of their platform.

On the other hand though I’m almost certain that WoW has basically the same thing (I’ve never actually played WOW, so I can’t be 100% positive), and if literally the only problem is them running the secondary market, the lawsuit makes more sense.

But the fact that they included selling hardware to sell the digital assets makes me suspect that they don’t know you could essentially do the same thing with a switch or PlayStation and that’s wild to me.

It’s particularly the bit about buying a steam deck, loading it with the high price items, and selling it that I latched onto when I read the article.

Specifically that’s important because that’s literally something you can do with any system and more importantly with any account. You don’t even need to load up and sell a steam deck, you absolutely can just sell the steam account.

If this is simply about providing a marketplace for loot box goods on where you can convert those assets easily to real world currency then that’s different. I still don’t agree that it should eliminate loot boxes from being gambling (because that’s exactly what it is), but I do understand why they might consider the steam asset market as part of a casino or similar.

I don’t play the types of games that give out loot boxes like that, and my only experience with the asset market is the trading cards you can get by playing some games. Those strike me as very similar to Pokemon cards and TCG has already got a “black market” going on for those.

https://www.ign.com/articles/pokmon-tcg-pocket-trading-has-spurred-a-strange-black-market-for-high-rarity-cards

I would definitely argue that it’s telling that they even mention children in this lawsuit. Because honestly, there’s lots of games that are for children that include the loot box mechanic (not even just digital games but trading cards), and nothing has been done about reselling assets from those.

The root of the problem is that the loot box assets can be purchased instead of just traded (within the limits of the law), and so I’d wager that should be the change Valve makes.

I still think they should just make the loot boxes illegal if we’re doing this.

By legislating them to be illegal and then fining developers that don’t comply. Sliding scale fines that wipe out the cost benefit of the loot boxes in the first place would suffice.

If loot boxes are illegal then send Valve a cease and desist for selling games that have loot boxes and be done with it.

Because you can do the same thing by buying the required hardware from any of those companies and selling it with the digital items on it for cash. That’s not really supposed to be allowed (plenty of companies including steam do crack down on selling accounts). But while I agree that lot boxes are gambling there really needs to be a hard line that doesn’t require the ability to convert assets to cash. Otherwise the loot box problem will persist and we will have shittier resulting services with no real added benefit.

People were selling animal crossing residents on eBay. People have been selling accounts for things like WOW and Call of Duty. I believe there was even a market for Destiny accounts at one point.

By NY’s definition of gambling, buying a pack of Pokemon cards is gambling.

Or, alternatively, sue the game developers themselves. Because I note they aren’t suing Xbox, Nintendo, or PlayStation.

The nothing to fear rhetoric is always spouted by people who assume the government has their best interest at heart and won’t use gathered data against them to frame them for something illegal that they didn’t do.

For now. Social norms are changing whether we like it or not.