AI companies are making a choice when they design unsafe platforms.

The right choice.

Technology to prevent this harm already exists: Anthropic’s Claude, for example, consistently tried to dissuade users from acts of violence.

That shit’s awfully condescending & paternalistic.

AI platforms are becoming a weapon for extremists and school shooters.

For deficient plans: AI gets shit wrong so often, we should probably encourage idiots to concoct their “foolproof” plans on it.

Demand AI companies put people’s safety ahead of profit.

Nah: thought isn’t action. Liberty means respecting others’ freedom to have “unsafe” thoughts. Someone else could pose the same questions to audit security weaknesses & prepare safety plans.

Moreover, all of this was already possible with a search engine & notes. Information alarmists can get fucked.

And? The word enshittification is not a great contribution to society.

immiserated and precaratized

dafuq?

Whereas the people who choose when and how to use AI — the centaurs

que?

The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide

A bit contrived?

Thanks for bringing us this extraterrestrial perspective, OP. Extraterrestrial voices matter! 🫡

Cling to semantics if you need to, but the spirit of what I said was true.

Is it? Doesn’t seem a valid argument.

Hitler embraced the construction of the autobahn. Therefore, the autobahn is evil.

operates the same way (guilt by association fallacy). I agree bluesky “was always going to shit” for entirely different reasons like repeating the same mistakes of twitter.

Maybe you could offer a more logical argument for your conclusion instead of dragging the discussion into irrationality?

and they’re taking it out on the trees. What did the trees do to deserve that?

Are you referring to yourself by claiming your ignorance somehow matches legal expertise? Cool ad hominem, by the way: fallacies (including strawman of the transformative use argument), blame-shifting when you can’t back claims with credible evidence, & self-indulgent vanity are the hallmarks of trolls. Way to out yourself, buddy. 😄

Don’t need to: their lawyers understood the law & lawyered successfully so far.

Precedent means we can cite it, so yes, this helps a bit. The rest you wrote is a fair bit of assumption or unnecessary: evidence to back your points would help. Otherwise, it just looks like inconclusive defeatism.

Moby Dick

Public domain.

You could also try understanding the law

§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

with particular attention to factors 1 (especially transformation) & 4.

If that’s not for you, though, then you should definitely try that with a copyright work (Disney?) & report back on how that went.

I wouldn’t be so confident without a legal argument to support your opinion.

Because you can’t: worthless opinion discarded.

Explain how the post is right wing.

Trolling seems like a catch all for unpopular ideas/“things I don’t like”. How is unpopular expression & expression in general not the whole point of social media?

Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?

Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a “Nazi bar”, so is the internet or any “platform”.

Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn’t discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It’s also a disservice to better ideas

• it withholds opportunities for people to become competent enough advocates to discredit bad ideas
• instead of deradicalize opponents, it drives their discussion elsewhere: they continue to radicalize & grow opposition unchallenged.

Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.

Paradox of intolerance?

The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?

Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.

Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It’s the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.

Other tech CEOs, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and Tesla’s Elon Musk, have also spoken about limiting their children’s access to devices. Gates has said he did not give his children smartphones until age 14 and banned phones at the dinner table entirely. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, in 2018, said he limits his child to the same 1.5 hours per week of screen time as Thiel.

Seems like these failures suing them & demanding government paternalism

Yet, as the trials against social media companies continue and country after country moves toward legislating what Silicon Valley’s billionaires have quietly practiced for years

don’t know how to effectively limit access/use parental controls as tech CEOs claim to do.

If the end user can arbitrarily sign code themselves that is bootable then it kind of defeats the purpose of secure boot.

They can & it doesn’t. They can change the platform key to become the platform owner & control the public keys they keep in the code signing databases. Secure Boot gives the platform owner control over authorized code signers of boot processes.

That’s true today, but there’s no guarantee it will be true in the future.

It’s in the specification.

The platform key establishes a trust relationship between the platform owner and the platform firmware. The platform owner enrolls the public half of the key (PKpub) into the platform firmware. The platform owner can later use the private half of the key (PKpriv) to change platform ownership or to enroll a Key Exchange Key. See “Enrolling The Platform Key” and “Clearing The Platform Key” for more information.

The platform owner clears the public half of the Platform Key (PKpub) by deleting the Platform Key variable using UEFI Runtime Service SetVariable(). The data buffer submitted to the SetVariable() must be signed with the current PKpriv - see Variable Services for details. The name and GUID of the Platform Key variable are specified in Globally Defined Variables. The platform key may also be cleared using a secure platform-specific method. When the platform key is cleared, the global variable SetupMode must also be updated to 1.

It’s a matter of clearing the platform key & enrolling your own platform key. I’ve done this before.

Typically, computers with Secure Boot let us clear the platform key from the boot menu. (You can choose to purchase only those that do.) Some computer vendors ship Secure Boot in setup mode or let the customer provide public keys to ship preloaded.

Secure Boot has always been for enabling the owner to enforce integrity of the boot process through cryptographic signatures. Linus Torvalds thought the feature makes sense.

Linus: I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source community this is so unpopular that people haven’t really worked on it.

It’s true that secure boot can be used for horribly, horribly bad things but using that as an argument against its existence at all is I think a bit naive and not necessarily right. Because if you do things right then it’s a really good thing. I would like my own machine to have the option to not boot any kernel, or boot loader, that is not signed by this signature.