Genuine question. How does all of this useless nonsense make them money? Is it all just from loans? Are they just saying “look at all the AI we’re doing” and the investors are just desperate to give them more money?

I just cannot fathom how they profit from all of this. They’re spending so much time doing this. For what? What is the business motive for doing this, if not to get bigger loans from their investors?

I’m guessing this will lead to more things being locked behind their subscription model. Ransoming core features for cash is the standard template of this process.

Kinda. But like, a compression algorithm that isnt all that good at exact decompression. It’s really good at outputting text that makes you think “wow that sounds pretty similar to what a person might write”. So even if it’s entirely wrong about something thats fine, as long as youd look at it and be satisfied its answer sounded right.

Xcancel is an alternative frontend for twitter to specifically avoid having to create an account to use Twitter. Again you could’ve gotten this information with a simple google search lmao “what is xcancel” 😂 there, I even typed it for you.

I also wasnt the person you responded to initially.

I also think that you’re a startlingly uncurious person if doing even a cursory glance at a google search is too much for you. Maybe these kinds of discussions just arent for you to begin with. If you really couldnt care less whether someone is a fascist or not, certainly not to the point of wanting to actually find out for yourself, then yeah maybe dont partake in the conversation.

You’re more interested in defending being lazy than you are in discussing the subject. I’m sure you’ll say something like “its the principle that matters”, which is the most boring possible answer you could give. I’m more than willing to see if someone hates trans people and/or is a white supremacist. I would absolutely prefer to know that so I can avoid them. It took me very minimal effort to find that information for myself. Less than 2 minutes.

I feel like its usually not with the intent to harass but a misapplication of the term born of genuine ignorance about what makes someone or something fascist, which is itself subjective in certain contexts.

A cursory glance at his Twitter profile shows him using the R slur, defending the fascist paramilitary group ICE, sharing an image that appears to depict Canada and Mexico being entirely conquered and subsumed by America, here’s an interesting little post of him glorifying literally fascist art, being a general transphobe (unsurprising), and im sure there’s lots of other heinous stuff i missed.

Really it was very clear from one single glance at his Twitter page. Come on now, you can manage that much on your own surely.

Oh, not just them. The fascists want to invade all North America and South America. We could very depressingly actually find ourselves on opposite sides of an armed conflict sometime soon. I mean, I’m a disabled trans woman and I am somewhat doubtful that anyone will be depending on me to shoot a gun, but you know. Maybe more like we could find ourselves being shot at by each country’s respective combat drones.

I am saying there should not be any other socioeconomic class other than the working class. The ruling class should be dissolved, the landowner class should be dissolved, the capitalist class should be dissolved, so and so forth until there is only the working class and all people are members of the working class.

If all members of society have the same relative power and access then there can be no monopoly of violence.

As to your second paragraph I cant tell what youre trying to get at? Are you saying that in order to criticize something I must entirely seperate myself from it? I am not a representative of the state which claims authority over me. I do not support or endorse the actions of the state i am subjected to. I would gladly accept the systemic changes necessary to give all workers the same power.

I don’t see a reality that is entirely free from violence of any kind as conceivable. I do however see a future wherein there is no monpoly of violence as possible, and that such a future would result in far less violence as a whole.

I also completely agree that we need to solve the root causes of fascism. Fascism is very much a consequence of capitalism and inequalities as well.

There is no contradiction there. I’m an anarchist and fundamentally anti-capitalist.

The working class or the proletariat is by far the largest class in society. It encompasses all those who labor to survive, and all those who cannot profit by exploitation of labor.

All other classes should be dissolved and all people should hold the same relative power. Whenever anyone comes along and proposes giving all the guns to another specific group of people who will use violence on behalf of the working class, the working class should respond with collective violence to prevent a monopoly of violence from forming.

I fundamentally disagree. No one should be trusted to wield violence on behalf of the working class. The working class should use collective violence to prevent a monopoly of violence from ever forming in the first place.

This is all fine and well, but ultimately in my opinion doomed to failure. The state and the ruling class do not just have a monopoly on violence because of the social attitudes protecting them, but also because of the conditions they have created for the working class and the rewards they give to class traitors.

You will never convince the ruling class to give up their monopoly on violence. And they will never willingly change the conditions that allow them to maintain that monopoly.

Violence is also something of a law of the natural world. The relative freedom from violence that we experience in our lives is just an illusion. In actuality the state is able to maintain this illusion, which benefits them, by shifting violence out of our field of view towards impoverished communities who cannot defend or advocate for themselves. For those communities violence is a direct constant in their lives, it only appears to be otherwise from our ignorant perspective.

There is also the problem posed by fascism. Fascism is very specifically an ideology that exploits the attitudes of liberal democracy, one of those being a refusal to respond violently to extreme bigotry and mass manipulation. Fascists do not gain power by debate and reasoned argument, they do so by appealing to supremacist sentiment and bigotry. They are aware that liberal democracy will protect them so long as they present an air of legitimacy. The appropriate response to fascists, like any other kind of decay, is to remove them from society. No matter how you seek to do that it will be violence. Fascism must be met with a violent response. Fascism exploits the way people view this violence as distasteful, and it seeks to portray anyone who would violently remove them as morally evil. It positions itself as the victim of this violence by insisting that all violence must be judged only on immediate circumstances stripped of context. That changes nothing however. If fascists are allowed to exist and spread their ideology freely, then you already exist in a proto-fascist state.

There’s a learning curve to it. I have yet to find anything I could do on windows that I can’t do on Linux. Lots of stuff took me a while to understand, but daily driving arch for 2 years and I actually cant believe how limited windows is and how I put up with it for so long.

Only real exceptions thus far are that you can’t play league of legends or fortnite. And thats because the developers have their servers set to kick any Linux users basically. Not a limitation of the operating system.

I’m an anarchist and an anti-capitalist, and usually appeal to the choices that have the best outcomes.

The government and every corporation having a direct personal dossier with my information in it is very specifically against my beliefs.

I think that social media should be designed like the fediverse. Organized around communities and those communities should be obligated to moderate themselves. Meta literally does not moderate any of its platforms. They know that Facebook and Instagram are full of misinformation, pedophiles, scam artists, and they do not care. The websites are designed to harvest money and data. They are not actually designed to create sustainable healthy social communities. There should be laws mandating routine auditing of the entire moderation ecosystem at social media platforms. If child safety is our concern then it should be the law that social media platforms have to actually deal with threats to child safety and make their platforms usable for children.

I don’t understand why there exists seemingly a widespread interest in protecting Facebook and TikTok? Why? I dont think the fediverse is bad for you. I wouldn’t come here if I believed that. The idea of social media itself being harmful is just a liberal misdirection right? Its all just to distract from the fact that Mark Zuckerberg has more power than most nations and is functionally beholden to no laws. He is entirely ambivalent to these laws because they make really no difference to his bottom line. Kids will still use his platforms. And the platforms themselves are entkrely unaffected. Perhaps even emboldened. Its an “adults only space” after all, which basically let’s them fuck off on all moderation of any kind. After all, all their users are adults now right. So why would they need to moderate? They’re already starting to do this. And kids are still going to access the sites anyway. So they just get access to a worse platform with even less protections for its users and designed even more aggressively to harvest their money and data.

I just see literally not a single positive in a law like this. I don’t get why the answer is to functionally inconvenience every single person and overnight destroy any semblance of human privacy. For nothing. For a net 0 gain. It’s all to protect the policies and actions of meta and TikTok and Snapchat and so on.

deleted by creator

Wouldn’t this just wind up being a de facto ban on the platform we’re using right now? How could Lemmy implement an age verification system? If social media platforms that dont comply with age verification are banned, then by default there goes most of the fediverse.

Why would you not just want social media to be better regulated by the law? You can’t seriously believe that your children are going to have no access to social media, even with an age ban, unless you intend to lock them in a room and home school them till they’re 18.

Lol

Arguments are based on reason. This is an argument for instance. You have produced an example that you feel conflicts with my earlier statement.

Are you able to provide a rationale or argument to your dog that they should get into the crate? Are you capable of reasoning with her logically? How can you communicate those things with her? Could she for instance have this argument that we are having right now? Can she understand the argument I am presently making and provide a rational counter argument? If not, why cant she do that?

Youre essentially arguing for a broad semantic definition of argument. Both of the participants in the exchange you just provided are focused on one individual. The exchange from your dogs perspective never crosses outside of your dogs subjective sensory experience. Your dog dislikes going into the crate. She is incapable of understanding why it is necessary for her to go in the crate. To claim that she has a humanlike awareness of that situation is to anthropomorphize her. From her perspective I doubt there are any explanations that could be presented to her to convince her that going in the crate is a good idea. She could be motivated by fear or by reward or by her own subjective emotional experience (maybe sometimes she just doesnt mind it that much) or even out of a desire to follow your directions as her master. But you couldn’t sit her down and provide a rational argument to her about why she should get in the crate. That’s not something her brain is capable of doing. Humans alone have neurology conducive to that. There is variation in the animal kingdom, but nothing that even approaches abstract referrential language.

Cool. This isnt a response to anything I said, and you have offered nothing to prove your claim that dogs can speak English lmao.

You are the exact kind of person for whom the ape torture experiments were made to begin with. Someone entirely uninterested in what can be observed and proven. Someone with a delusional anthropomorphic view of what animals are. Blind to your own biases and convinced by the subjective emotional experiences you have projected onto your pets.

No, I’m sorry but “believe me its totally true, everyone knows dogs can speak english” is not a legitimate argument nor a response to what I’ve been saying.

Your first statement is entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I dont even really know why you said it.

I’m saying I’ve never even heard of it. I would love to see a qualitative analysis of ‘arguments’ with dogs. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that anything even approaching actual language comprehension is happening. Understanding some words and sentences is not the same thing as language comprehension. Do they understand the meaning of the terms? Can they infer new things if terms have been rearranged? Do they understand the structure of language? No. They definitely cannot. They are capable of pattern matching human vocalizations though, especially as they relate to themselves and things in their immediate environment. Thats not the same thing as language. I’m very sorry if you do not understand the nuance between those 2 things, or if you genuinely believe any of your pets could speak English. Theres nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise if youve already decided that your subjective emotional experience with your animals leads you to believe they have English language speaking skills.