And to be logically consistent, do you also shame people for trying to remove things like child pornography, pornographic photos posted without consent or leaked personal details from the internet?

I consented to my post being federated and displayed on Lemmy.

Did writers and artists consent to having their work fed into a privately controlled system that didn’t exist when they made their post, so that it could make other people millions of dollars by ripping off their work?

The reality is that none of these models would be viable if they requested permission, paid for licensing or stuck to work that was clearly licensed.

Fortunately for women everywhere, nobody outside of AI arguments considers consent, once granted, to be both unrevokable and valid for any act for the rest of time.

Yeah it’s their fault for daring to communicate online without first considering a technology that didn’t exist.

Now delete your posts from ChatGPTs memory.

I don’t know, nor am I speculating. The person I was replying to said they didn’t see a browser check in the code, which isn’t enough to dismiss it.

They don’t need to put incriminating “if Firefox” statements in their code – the initial page request would have included the user agent and it would be trivial to serve different JavaScript based on what it said.

Was she? Any posts about “why isn’t X banned too?” were buried under an avalanche of reactionary tantrums about losing their platform to discuss hitting children. For the overwhelming majority of users, it was “this goes too far”, not “this doesn’t go far enough”.

Which means that realistically, she never got past the low hanging fruit. These were the days when a lot of these places still had plausible deniability so it was easy to pull in wider support.

My baseless guess is that she came in as CEO and noticed they were handing over some very predictable post histories every time there was a mass shooting but couldn’t come out and say “check out all these domestic terrorists” because it would damage the brand.

And looking back, she was absolutely in the right clearing out those communities.

Oh yeah, that’d be much less effort.

I posted this further up, but I think it’s worth pasting here too:

I suspect with a coordinated pool of posts or multiple comments on the same post, you could narrow that IP address down to an actual user account.

When a new comment is posted by a user, store, against their username, all IP addresses that visited since the last comment in that thread (by anyone). When a second comment is posted by a user, remove any IP addresses that don’t appear in both lists.

I suspect you would have a very short list after two comments, and a single address after 3. It would also be extremely easy to both lure someone into viewing an image and bait them into multiple replies. Geolocate that IP and you know know vaguely where that user lives.

Time to make sure you’re always on a VPN I guess.

Notably, this allows remote parties to associate your IP address with your interests, as revealed by the Lemmy communities that you browse.

I suspect with a coordinated pool of posts or multiple comments on the same post, you could narrow that IP address down to an actual user account.

When a new comment is posted by a user, store, against their username, all IP addresses that visited since the last comment in that thread (by anyone). When a second comment is posted by a user, remove any IP addresses that don’t appear in both lists.

I suspect you would have a very short list after two comments, and a single address after 3. It would also be extremely easy to both lure someone into viewing an image and bait them into multiple replies. Geolocate that IP and you know know vaguely where that user lives.

Time to make sure you’re always on a VPN I guess.

That wealth imbalance also pushes companies to force dumb shit like this on thier customers.

If Google were to just come out with a $10 a month plan that removed all the sleazy ways they try and profit from you, the overwhemling response would be “Oh great yet another subscription”, because these subscriptions have become a significant chunk of people’s income each month.

But what if greedy neoliberals hadn’t been pocketing our pay rises for $20 years and that subscription was functionally $1? Most people would be happy to blow $20 supporting 20 different content providers.

Unfortunately, their greed is insatiable. There’s always a room of executives doing their grubby little sums. “If people have $1, they probably have $2. We could double our profits! Then double our salaries!”.

Inflation just means “If rich people find out you’ve got more money, they’ll fuck you out of that too”.

The $1 will never be enough. They’ll keep charging more and more until people have nothing left to hand over. Then they’ll figure out more ways to squeeze a profit out of you. Manipulating you with ads, selling your private data, turning your body into expensive dogfood – whatever makes them a few more cents.