pteroductile.bsky.social
46 posts
3 followers
32 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
but he *looks* so sharp (and pointy)
comment in response to
post
If you care so much about Fox News spreading lies and propaganda, don’t you think you should confirm your facts before “correcting” other people online? Like, it wouldn’t take long to look up what the FD actually did.
comment in response to
post
Also it doesn’t look like Reagan had anything to do with him getting citizenship.
comment in response to
post
The first two sentences appear to be false. He was in the US for over 10 years before he got citizenship. And the Fairness Doctrine never applied to newspapers (or cable tv) and never prevented TV news from lying. Fox IS propaganda to be sure, but not really due to killing of the FD.
comment in response to
post
I'd never use it for legal research (or the kind Ann may be doing as an author), but for finding a fix to my complex software issue? It's great! It knows how to apply info scattered across the web to my problem, so I find the right info sooner. and also no downside if I get bad info. It all depends.
comment in response to
post
I personally use it for many things where I would have started on Google a year ago, and I tend to find the info I'm looking for much faster than using google. So in that sense it definitely can be a replacement. But I agree with your description of the different use cases...
comment in response to
post
She made several different claims though.
Not a search engine? Ok, True.
Doesn't scan the web? It can.
Can't use it as a substitute for search engine? Sure you can. LLMs are often way better than search engines at finding info. I think this really depends on your use case though.
comment in response to
post
It seems like a tiny thing but I think they correctly figured that allowing buttons to external payment systems would be a huge hole allowing anyone to avoid the 30% commission with just a small hit to their app’s UX. Their response was kind of insane though.
comment in response to
post
The problem is that 99% of the propaganda, fake news, and spurious accusations aren’t actually defamatory, and would still be protected speech. So removing Section 230 doesn’t really help in that regard.
comment in response to
post
Such as? What regulation do you imagine reining in Fox News that doesn’t limit their 1A rights?
comment in response to
post
None of the examples you gave would be unprotected speech, whether IRL or online. If a site wants to host racist kkk bs, they’re protected by the first amendment, even without 230. Just like they are if they publish it IRL.
comment in response to
post
So then are you suggesting new exceptions be made for the first amendment? That just proves my point that your issue isn’t really with section 230. Because nothing you’ve described so far would be unprotected under current 1A law.
comment in response to
post
You’re talking about the incitement and fighting words exceptions to 1A, but 99% of the hate, lies, and misinformation on the internet (which I agree are a huge problem) could never qualify for those exceptions.
comment in response to
post
230 isn’t what allows X to spread hate, misogyny, and racism though. If you remove 230 and then sue X for those things, X will still win because of the 1st amendment. Meanwhile you’ve killed smaller sites that cant afford to fight off frivolous defamation suits.
comment in response to
post
This is not true. Most lies and disinformation would still be legal without section 230.
comment in response to
post
But that’s obviously not what they meant by “most content online is protected”, because it’s actually a story about government censorship, not platform censorship. 60 minutes’ framing is substantially correct.
comment in response to
post
Im sorry, I’m not trying to be rude, but I honestly think Sherrilyn is just wrong here, and anyone who watches the 60 minutes intro would see it. Its true that Musks whole speech absolutism think is bunk, and that 1A doesn’t protect against platforms removing hate speech..
comment in response to
post
You won’t answer my question?
comment in response to
post
I don’t think so. Did the 60 minutes intro actually say that the first amendment protects you from a platform banning you?
comment in response to
post
Ok but this 60 minutes story is about European governments arresting and prosecuting people for their speech online, not about social media moderation. It seems appropriate to point out that 1A protects Americans from that kind of prosecution.
comment in response to
post
How is that quote incorrect? In the US most content on social media IS protected by the first amendment. What's the error?
comment in response to
post
What about those fancy stores at the airport that don't ever sell anything?
comment in response to
post
Tim Berners Lee did not invent the internet.
comment in response to
post
Sure scotus can always reverse itself. But realize that the courts have been strengthening 1A for the last 75 years. And scotus has said they don't have authority to create new exceptions to 1A. You'd probably only need to replace 8 or 9 justices. So.. good luck?
comment in response to
post
No pontification needed when courts have already spelled it out clearly. Commercial speech is one of the few exceptions where the govt can limit speech (e.g. false advertising) but you're talking about restricting political speech. No way that's allowed under current precedent.
comment in response to
post
What regulations?
comment in response to
post
Maybe the core freaker outers are those who made deals with Honey. But it looks like the plaintiffs in the lawsuit did not.
comment in response to
post
Kaiba!
comment in response to
post
The article discusses those emails. They don't appear to be evidence of any kind of censorship.
comment in response to
post
The first amendment can still apply in lawsuits between private individuals.
comment in response to
post
Having 2 guys running it seems a little.. inefficient no? Who will be the first to propose removing the other guy (for efficiency).
comment in response to
post
Bluesky is basically twitter-style social media, but I wonder if the protocol is flexible enough that you could also build “subreddits” on top of the same network.
comment in response to
post
And Nat King Cole stopped wishing him a Merry Christmas 8 years ago.
comment in response to
post
I mean the basic “pay to read the newspaper” subscription normal consumers pay for. The issue isn’t that AI co’s have infringed copyright by downloading articles off thePirateBay or whatever. Even if content is *consumed* legally, there’s still a separate copyright question at play.
comment in response to
post
That seems irrelevant though. The NY Times isn’t arguing that the AIs just need to buy a newspaper subscription, right?
comment in response to
post
Back when that ruling came down there was a lot of "now the prez can order a hit" talk and the usual reply was "no, because that's not an official act". But what if the prez asks a cooperating foreign govt to do the hit?
comment in response to
post
If the problem is local news dying then you could just subsidize them with tax dollars. The issue is that a link tax is really solving a different problem of “google linking to news sites without paying them”. If that was actually the problem then google stopping linking would be a good outcome.
comment in response to
post
Seeing two different people in my timeline quoting this "what’s your stupidest internet beef" thing and they're both about Avenati.
comment in response to
post
Kind of amazing how quick it happened. My office was near one of the early nursing home outbreaks. On Monday my only precaution was not going out for lunch. On Tuesday no one at all went into the office. 18 months later I retrieved my headphones and a dead plant from my desk.
comment in response to
post
There have been a lot of people on xitter arguing that Trump *cannot* appeal without posting the $. This particular one might just be caused by someone trying to squeeze things into a headline. But it has been a whole recurring bad legal take over there lately.
comment in response to
post
Lol. This kind of crazy is what’s been missing from bluesky.
comment in response to
post
A good fully AI generated film seems a ways off, but you could have humans writing the script and making all other creative decisions, with the AI just converting that creative input into video. That might work? Or it might still be bland garbage because genAI always tends towards cliche.
comment in response to
post
Sorry I’m not sure what point you’re making? My point was that if a person had done what chatgpt did (repubish whole NYT articles with only a few words changed) it would likely be considered infringement. Whether it’s an LLM or how it works doesn’t really matter.
comment in response to
post
No but it would be copyright infringement. And so it should be when an LLM does it too, right? I’m making a bit of a devil’s advocate argument I don’t entirely agree with btw. I think building an LLM with others’ content ought to be fair use.
comment in response to
post
What if your brain has a photographic memory and you sell a service that reproduces things you memorized whenever asked?
comment in response to
post
Exhibit J is pretty surprising and compelling. If the AI can reproduce the content with 90% accuracy then isn’t a copy of that content somehow *in* the model?