![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
I’ll tell you what. When proton ships a product that takes a screenshot of my desktop every 5 seconds and stores it in an unsecured DB any user on my computer can access, we’ll call them even.
I’ll tell you what. When proton ships a product that takes a screenshot of my desktop every 5 seconds and stores it in an unsecured DB any user on my computer can access, we’ll call them even.
Not for the battery itself.
They are allowed to void your warranty, if, for example, they can show it’s delivering out of spec voltage and that damaged the SoC.
There’s busy and there’s “checkout lines literally to the back of the store”
I said you should. It’s that catastrophically dangerous, and it isn’t a mistake.
People absolutely will be stalked and attacked as a direct result of this insane horseshit if it is not shut down.
It is unconditionally not acceptable.
Fuck that. It absolutely is not a norm to have anyone with an internet connection watch you drink, and is an obscene safety risk. Making a camera publicly accessible should automatically revoke your liquor license and permanently bar the owner from ever being able to apply for one again.
That’s fucking insane.
Especially when it doesn’t even work lol.
I’m always skeptical of anything LLM, but this looks like an interesting use case on the surface.
The difference is that they can boil the frog gradually.
Traditional media tries to move people, absolutely. But a newspaper has to address the crazies and try to convert people into crazies in the same paper. If they’re too extreme, more moderate people can see that right away, and it’s easier to minimize engagement with it.
With social media, you personalize the content surfaced. You start by making it seem mostly sane, with an out there idea here or there. Then, as they start to engage with the slightly mild stuff, you move the “mostly sane” in that direction, and the “mild” moves a couple extra steps. Now, you’re part of a movement. Everyone around you is changing their beliefs, and the new ones aren’t that far off from your previous beliefs, so why not follow?
6 months later, you were always pretty left/right-leaning (cognitive dissonance, baybee!!!). But it looks like the consensus is finally shifting your way. It’s just a small step further right/left, and everyone around you is making it too. The world is changing for a better, so let’s be that change.
I started to highlight bits to cut out and highlight as the key points, but it became pretty quickly that that link already is the executive summary. It’s already basically in outline form, and a super quick read.
You don’t need to rely on the headline.
Is web of trust still a thing?
That was intended to be kind of a distributed way to determine who didn’t suck.
For interaction? Pseudonyms with a ramp up into being able to interact fully is the middle ground. Your activity on that specific site will be monitored to kick you out if you behave inappropriately, but it shouldn’t carry across sites unless you voluntarily use a third party identity provider (which is a good option to have).
Massive scale is a big part of the issue. It raises the barrier to entry for competing platforms (because being able to scale to rapid growth is a huge up front investment, and can easily cripple your platform if you don’t do so), and brings the moderation responsibilities beyond anything actually manageable. Small to mid sized communities being the norm is much more manageable, much easier to develop for, and much healthier generally.
It doesn’t matter if the copy is all at once. Every bit of the file touching your computer involves multiple copies. It is fundamentally impossible to share any file without copies being made. The original digitization is already probably illegal because it’s for the purpose of distribution and not one of the fair use exceptions. Again, this is exactly identical to the claim that pirate sites providing streaming is legal.
Libraries do not make copies. Legally, it’s exactly that simple. There is no ambiguity in any way. It is copyright infringement under current law. It is not possible to defend this without throwing current law in the trash and starting over from scratch. If the judge did somehow rule in IA’s favor the Supreme Court could overrule him in about 30 seconds with basically no deliberation. Courts do not have the authority to change the law.
There’s no possible way to apply the law where the Internet Archive is permitted to do their lending program. It very clearly is illegal copyright infringement that does not come anywhere close to fair use.
The judges do not have the authority to completely overrule both the text of the law and the massive body of precedent. The Supreme Court could, except the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to regulate IP how they see fit, and the law is super clear that you can’t do anything that resembles what IA is doing in any way.
Memorizing everything is impressive for a human.
It’s less impressive for a computer.
Because the libraries have explicit licenses from the IP holders.
The encryption is literally entirely irrelevant.
The argument that a copy in your browser is legally defensible is the equivalent of claiming that sites can legally stream movies to you. It is a copy, both legally and in reality.
Then write new laws. Digitizing the book is already relying on fair use. Judges aren’t lawmakers, and this case doesn’t have the tiniest hint of the tiniest shred of a leg to stand on.
There is no first sale doctrine for digital. There is no such thing as ownership of a “digital copy” to begin with. The framework doesn’t exist. You have a license.
Such source code isn’t possible with the general audience service they offer, even if being open source were a requirement for credibility in any way.
You’re comparing them to a company with a long history of actively hostile behavior despite the fact that there’s never been a single hint of anything resembling hostile behavior from them, they operate from a country with meaningful privacy protections and only surrender data when compelled by their own courts (who only do so in circumstances that actually warrant it), and haven’t actually given up information that’s useful when required to because they don’t have it.