@[email protected] not all heroes wear capes. Thank you for making my day!

Bad bot.

It has been public for a long time that they have access to your contacts and metadata (who you talk to, how much, when, from where, etc.) That was bad enough. But this is the first time I’ve heard about accessing message content. Really chilling.

Why does evey MEE article include the phrase “according to [insert terrorist organization],” and then presents the information completely uncritically?

Funny that the surveillance state suddenly forgets to surveil when it is the one under the spotlight.

Loops is actually pretty great.

This is truly horrifying. Even more so that the world is watching it happen with precious little protest.

Having a number of different editors allows manipulating the discussion and concensus protections built into Wikipedia.

Depending on the topic, it may not be necessary. A complimentary article about a new technology product or company founder just takes a few press releases that get picked up. Manipulating world events and leaders requires more coordination.

Although manipulating the sources cited is a great way to manipulate Wikipedia. You have to recruit 10-40 people to act as a group of editors to manufacture concensus across topics. Or you can just create a website or series of press releases.

“Hey, this small-town museum has an article about a historical event. It must be true. Link it at the bottom.” Or “well, this local newspaper article says it is happened, so into the article it goes.”

Even more effective, especially for political groups, is just publish dozens of supportive articles, while miring competing articles in edit wars and the bureaucracy that comes with it. For sources, just cite expert books that are favorable. It’s not easy, but hiring or recruiting 10-40 editors is trivial for political entities.

We honestly need to end the myth that Wikipedia is some impenetrable white tower. It can and has been infiltrated by corporate and political groups, and even creative vandals.

It’s the most valuable digital property in the world. You think people break into the Louvre but can’t touch Wikipedia?

They literally will and are.

If they built out a Mastodon network with government support, then it would.

This has not been voted on to my knowledge. This article is just about the cosigners officially submitting the bill.

Uh, Mastodon exists?

So the people killing women for partially uncovering their hair are the good guys?

The people murdering thousands of protestors are the good guys?

So the religious fundamentalists imposing doctrine at gunpoint are the good guys?

I think the people protesting for their lives and freedoms are the good guys, but that’s just me.

Not exactly.

For context, a bill only needs one sponsor. Most bills have about 2 or 3 cosponsors. Signing a bill as a cosponsor is not the same as voting, which hasn’t happened yet.

Yes, thank goodness we saved Gaza by keeping those dems out of office.

Do you get that literally has nothing to do with what we are talking about here?

Keep protesting for the people of Iran. Keep pressure on Western governments to act and support the Persian people. The Iranian people never wanted to live under a fundamentalist terror state.

Economic isolation against every individual official and commander killing their own people is the most important tool we have.

Keep the information channels open at all costs.

London:

Berlin:

Paris:

Just to be clear, companies know that LLMs are categorically bad at giving life advice/ emotional guidance. They also know that personal decision making is the most common use of the software. They could easily have guardrails in place to prevent it from doing that.

They will never do that.

This is by design. They want people to develop pseudo-emotional bonds with the software, and to trust the judgment in matters of life guidance. In the next year or so, some LLM projects will become profitable for the first time as advertisers flock to the platforms. Injecting ads into conversations with a trusted confidant is the goal. Incluencing human behaviour is the goal.

By 2028, we will be reading about “ChatGPT told teen to drink Pepsi until she went into a sugar coma.”

The headline also does not say the same thing that the post claims!

Headline: “15% of content” --> every 6th or 7th post or comment is a corporate troll

Article: “15% of subreddits contain” --> the vast majority of subreddits contain no troll content

Actual study: [file not found]

I also cannot find any Pew research study resembling the one described. The link is a 2017 report that doesn’t mention reddit.