dick_fineman

joined 2 weeks ago
[–] dick_fineman@discuss.online 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think it's only on certain subreddits though?

So /r/law was in the link above as [removed] and I just tried posting something VERY innocuous there, and here's what happened within SECONDS:

And it doesn't happen always on /r/marchagainstnazis, after the BS:

 

My understanding is that mods can silently remove content from their subreddits, but it will still show up in your comment-history. However, admins can silently remove content and it will NOT be in your comment history. Well, when I'm logged out, I noticed some of my comments were "removed" but when I'm logged in they show up. Looking at the comments more closely, I don't believe they broke any rules...at least not site-wide rules. I received no notification that they were removed either.

Further, these comments ALL related to the Trump/Zelensky interview. I get the need to moderate online communities, but there's something particularly dystopian about quietly censoring someone for expressing political-speech you don't like, and doing it in such a way that they (theoretically) don't even realize they've been censored (if they're not weird paranoid fucks like me). You've just secretly put a bubble around them, all for the crime of political speech you don't like.

Here are some screenshots to verify what I'm saying:

https://i.imgur.com/kff8INQ.png

...

And so the same thing happened when I posted this exact post (above the "...") in another sub on Reddit...one I participate in regularly. And here's how that looks:

https://i.imgur.com/NzRI5T6.png

[–] dick_fineman@discuss.online 4 points 2 weeks ago

The ethics based on Intellectual Property? Quality, sure, but ethics?

Full disclosure: I'm a geek from the days of newsgroups and Geocities. I watched the rise and fall of things like Napster. And I watched IP-law get more and more restrictive. But what is "intellectual property" really? You're effectively taking an idea and saying "this is mine, I made this first, therefore I own it".

Around 1996, when I was 12, I thought it'd be really cool to have a small laptop that laid flat and you could hold in your hands. The designs I drew up VERY closely resembled a Blackberry. Blackberry came out a few years later. If I had filed the right paperwork, at 12, should I be able to stop them? I sincerely doubt they were spying on the drawings I made on the back of my homework. Should you get to stifle innovation just because you had the first brainfart? I don't think so.

But okay, let's say you're only thinking about artistic works. Again, you're gonna have repetition. This came out in 1995. This came out in 2008.

So what's the issue with AI; it was trained on "copyrighted" material? K, well so were you. Are folks upset because creators didn't get paid every time an AI reviewed their copyrighted works? Well, are they similarly upset about folks who check a book or movie out of the library? Not so much...because that's normalized (though would NEVER go over in today's hyper-corporate nonsense world). Okay, so are folks upset that generative works can resemble the style or "essence" of the original work? Lol, see the Jill Sobule/Katy Perry comparison above, also consider "Fair Use" and the likely transformative nature involved as well.

This isn't an "ethics" issue...it's an issue of disrupting existing channels for corporate power within a world sliding more and more into a dystopia of corporate fascism.