No. Maybe that’s just clickbait, or maybe the writers here prefer AI to be the target of the outrage. The complaint has very little to do with AI.

The people operating the platform may be fined if they don’t moderate according to their local law.

I’ve seen people here often cheer for the EU standing up to Big Tech. Well, this, too, is EU regulations.

An armed society is a polite society. I’ve never believed that. I still don’t. There doesn’t seem to be much of a connection between gun ownership and access to health care.

That’s not how the law works.

If anyone wants it a little more precise. Lemmy.world claims Dutch and German jurisdiction. An English translation of one relevant German statute may be found here (§130, but also note §131): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1368

I don’t think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It’s all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it’s not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.

.world is in the EU. The same laws that apply to inciting hate or violence against “The Jews” or “The Blacks” also apply to “The CEOs”. And the same laws that apply to Facebook also apply to lemmy.

Elvis Presley is able to answer that one, and he’s been dead for almost 50 years. Makes you understand why his fame is so lasting, unlike the teen heartthrobs of later decades.

They say they don’t. Would be very bad publicity if they did, and possibly breach of contract or other legal trouble.

Satellite receiver usually means a thingy for receiving satellite TV. Receiver means that it only receives signals but cannot transmit any.

I assume that these are internet enabled. Maybe just for updates, or maybe to also do streaming. So, I take it to mean that they do the normal internet DDOS thing on the side, in a way that has nothing to do with satellites.

Yeah. The descriptions are neat but not disconcerting. The coordinates would be scary but seem to come from the metadata. Annoying viral marketing.

It’s not necessary to expose the identities of the users. The age confirmation could happen via a password, PIN, or even a physical USB dongle. Tying such methods to a particular identity adds nothing to the age verification.

If that is not enough, then one would need a permanent, live webcam feed of the user. It could be monitored by AI, and/or police officers could make random checks.

Granted, one would have to make sure that not everyone behind the same router can use age-restricted services; eg with a VPN. That would let them assign connections to individual, anonymous adults. But I’d guess you could do that anyway with some confidence by analyzing usage patterns. Besides, information on who is in a home can also be found in other places such as social media or maybe company websites. So I do not think this is much new information.

But thinking about it, one could compartmentalize this.

The ISP only allows connections to whitelisted servers, including 1 or more government approved VPNs. The ISP refuses connection to these VPNs without age confirmation. The VPN provider does not need to be told the identity of the customer. There needs to be no persistence across sessions. The ISP need not know what sites are visited via VPN. While the VPN provider need not know about sites visited without.

If you do it that way, the ISP ends up knowing less than before.

Since both ISP and VPN servers and offices would be physically located in the country, one would have no problem enforcing prohibitions on data sharing, if desired by lawmakers.

Anyway, this is the only realistic approach in the whole thread. Everything else assumes that Australian law will be followed globally. And then the ISP still has all that usage data. Why not just use a blockchain…

I’d lean on the ISPs. Your ISP knows what sites you visit, and they have your location and payment information. They can just insert some verification page when a classified IP is contacted. This gives them hardly any information beyond what they already have. And since they are mainly located in Australia, it is easy to enforce laws on them.

You have to lean on ISPs anyway because it is quite ridiculous to assume that the entire global internet will implement Australian laws. Does anyone believe that their Lemmy instance will implement some AI face scan or cryptography scheme?

You would have to block servers that do not comply with the law anyway. The effective solution would be a whitelist of services that have been vetted. In practice, I think we’ll see the digital equivalent of ok boomer.

If a whitelist seems extreme, then one should have another look at the problem. The point is to make sure that information is only accessed by citizens with official authorization. There is no technological difference between the infrastructure needed to enforce this (or copyrights) and some totalitarian hellscape.

If that’s what you want, you should join Facebook.

The fundamental thing to understand is that the internet - and really all information processing - is about copying. There is no such thing as “looking” at a profile or a post. The text and image data is downloaded to your device. You end up with multiple copies on your device.

Sending information out, but blocking people from storing it, is fundamentally a contradiction in terms.

Bsky - like Lemmy - made the choice to make the data widely available. It is available via API and does not need to be scraped. The alternative is to do it like Reddit or even Facebook or Discord. But they can’t stop scraping, either. They can make it slower and more laborious but not stop it. Services like Facebook protect the data as best as they can to “protect your privacy”. In reality, it’s about making it hard for you to leave the platform or anyone else to benefit from your data. Either way, you can trust Zuck to protect your data as if it was his own. Because it is.

Well, this post got downvoted big-time, and the other one upvoted. Doesn’t really fit the energy explanation.

There’s an obvious difference between this post, the OpenAI lawsuit post, and a lot of other popular copyright posts. This one is about how copyright owners are getting richer. The popular posts are about how the owners are being stolen from and exploited by tech companies like OpenAI or Spotify. Aww. Poor souls need more money. Boom times gotta boom.

Major parts are about the streaming industry.

A toy like that is easy to create and not that expensive to offer. Much more expensive than some JavaScript or CSS, but in the end it’s not that different.

I think people don’t really understand this whole scraping thing. For example, you can torrent all of Reddit until the API-change; all the comments, profiles, usernames, including now deleted stuff. There is a lot of outrage here over Reddit cracking down on these 3rd party tools. It’s difficult to see how that outrage over cracking down on 3rd party tools, fits with this outrage here over not cracking down on 3rd party tools.

Anyway, if someone want to archive all of Bluesky, they don’t need to offer some AI toy. They can just download the content via the API.

Not really sure why there are no complaints about the story regarding the copyright suit against OpenAI.

Yes. Very much the reason that Europe can’t make much of a contribution.

Copyright is of major importance for technology. Think of AI.

Strange that the adults don’t want those benefits for themselves also.