Rottcodd

It’s really sort of amazing how few years it took to go from “Do no evil” to “Don’t even bother pretending not to.”

Axiomatically, no, since it isn’t even AI in any meaningful sense of the term, so it fails to live up to its hype right out the gate.

So… aren’t these wannabe twitter competitors going about the whole thing bass-ackwards?

I saw a broadly similar article the other day about some sort of shakeup in the Mastodon board of directors.

It’s as if they think the way do do an internet startup is to first appoint a board of directors and hire a raft of executives, then… um… you know… um… do some business… kinda… stuff…

What “entitlement?”

I don’t expect anyone to start a web site or service or to give me or anyone else access to it at all, much less for free.

I’m just making the very narrow point that when a company chooses to do all of that, and manages to make enough money to build a plush corporate headquarters on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay its executives millions or even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, then starts crying about not making enough money, that’s self-evident bullshit.

If anybody’s acting"entitled" in that scenario, it’s the greedy corporate weasels who spend billions on their own privilege, then expect us to cover their asses when they come up short.

I expect a wave of internet users to get upset and call paying for used services “enshittification”, because people don’t realise how much running these AI models actually costs.

I am so tired of this bullshit. Every time I’ve turned around, for the past thirty years now, I’ve seen some variation on this same basic song and dance.

Yet somehow, in spite of supposedly being burdened with so much expense and not given their due by a selfish, ignorant public, these companies still manage to build plush offices on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay eight- or even nine-figure salaries to a raft of executive parasites.

When they start selling assets and cutting executive salaries, or better yet laying them off, then I’ll entertain the possibility that they need more revenue. Until then, fuck 'em.

Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

I already generally do.

What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?

I honestly don’t much care, but that’s because western civilization is circling the drain, warped and undermined at every turn by wealthy and powerful psychopaths, and it’s just not worth it to care, since there’s absolutely nothing I can do to stop them

Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

Some sort of revenue stream is potentially necessary, but that’s the extent of it. Advertising is just one revenue stream, and even if we limit the choices to that, there are still many different ways it could be implemented.

The specific forms of advertising to which we’re subjected on the internet are very much not necessary. And they don’t exist as they do because the costs of serving content require that much revenue - they exist as they do to pay for corporate bloat - ludicrously expensive real estate and facilities and grotesquely inflated salaries for mostly useless executive shitheads.

Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

Again, that’s what I already do, so it would just add more sites to those I won’t visit.

Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

At this point, the two are almost always one and the same. Internet technology is primarily harnessed to the goal of maximizing income for the well-positioned few, and all other considerations are secondary.

Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?

This is cynically amusing on Lemmy.

Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?

Of course they should, but they won’t, because they’re psychopaths. They’ll never give up any of their grotesque and destructive privilege, even if that means that they ultimately destroy the host on which they’re parasites.

No - not really.

Monkey push “Reddit” button - monkey get banana.

Monkey don’t know what other buttons for.

Reddit could survive with nothing but bots posting AI generated drivel and memes, and more bots endlessly responding with variations on “This,” “Don’t threaten me with a good time” and “That’s what she said.”

Just so long as the zombies have enough “content” to scroll through, inertia alone will keep it going.

It doesn’t matter how much money he has - every time I visualize Musk posting to Twitter, I see him as a teenage edgelord in a shabby suburban tract house, hunched over an off-the-shelf desktop PC in a room with green shag carpeting and fake wood paneling, lit only by the glow from the screen, giggling to himself.

The thing I really can’t understand, and a likely consequence of the ubiquity of apps, is all of the people who can’t seem to function without them.

Like when the Reddit exodus to the threadiverse happened, people started immediately crying for Lemmy apps. And it doesn’t seem to matter that much how bare-bones or unstable one might be - the important thing is that it’s an app. That’s all that seems to matter to them.

It’s as if they aren’t even aware of the fact that these are all websites, so they all work in a browser - as if to them, an app is a necessity and they can’t figure out how to accomplish anything otherwise.

Right, but that wasn’t really my point. I mean “artificial intelligence,” as the term has come to be used in this current world in which, for example, film and television producers want to have large language models write scripts, is a substitute for intelligence, in that people who don’t possess actual intelligence want to use it to create strings of words with which to impress other people who don’t possess actual intelligence. It’s pretend intelligence by and for people who don’t possess the real kind.

It just struck me that artificial intelligence is an accurate term after all, just in a different sense than the classic idea of a non-living consciousness.

It’s “artificial intelligence” in that it’s a substitute for real intelligence.

Of course they did. That’s the next step in the perpetual war assembly line.

I find google works fine if I’m just looking for general information on a simple topic, because it will dependably return a link to the wikipedia entry and a few of the most popular sites.

And I find that it’s pretty much useless for specific information about narrow topics, because it’s still just going to return the same general shit.

I’m not sure exactly how the change worked, but some time back (it’s been a year or two now, and maybe more - it’s just something that I sort of slowly realized had happened), they shifted to a system that made Google Fu essentially useless.

It used to be the case that you could define the importance of search terms by the order in which you listed them and make some effectively required by putting quotation marks around them.

But starting a couple of years back, it’s been generally ignoring search term order and quotation marks, and instead giving priority to specific common (and certainly not coincidentally common marketing) terms.

To anthropomorphize, it’s as if it’s developed a cripplingly narrow focus. So if, for instance, you’re looking for the title of some specific movie, it doesn’t matter how many other search terms you include or what order you list the terms in - if you include the term “movie,” that’s what it’s going to focus on. So if you’re lucky, you might get the actual movie you’re looking for, but it’s absolutely guaranteed that you’re going to get streaming services and “18 movies with real blood” style clickbait.

The place feels different today than it did just a couple of days ago, and it positively reeks of bots.

I’m seeing far fewer original posts and far more links to karma-farmer quality pabulum, all of which pretty much instantly somehow get hundreds of upvotes.

The bots are here. And they’re circlejerking.

It’s not "exactly* the same, since yes - many of those nost involved in the ugliness were the same toxic posters who had been ejected from Reddit. More notably, it was different in that it was a single, monolithic site rather than a federation of individual instances.

However, the broad dynamic of it all - the way in which the destruction played out - was, to ne, disturbingly similar to what’s happening here now.

It all started with posters banging the drums of fear, and specifically fear of some external actor that was going to move in to the site and destroy it. Exactly as is happening here. Then that drumbeat of fear started to alternate with the repeated refrain that “we” need to do something to protect the site from the threat. Exactly as is happening here.

The next step was to “do something.” Specifically, a group of people pushed for a broad comminity commitment to opposingvthe invader, then appointed themselves guardians of that commitment. They began harassing and brigading people and subs that they claimed to be agents of the threat, or simply were accused of being insufficiently committed to “protecting” the site. And it was all downhill from there - the site tore itself apart from the inside.

And yes, I’m aware of that article. Really, at this point, it’s pretty much guaranteed that anyone who’s spent even a few minutes on the fediverse is aware of it. since every single discussion of this topic brings another 37 links to that same article.

It does make some salient points, but it too is starting to feel a bit like astroturf.

And I find it a bit disconcerting that the focus seems to be on the threat the article outlines rather than the solution it prescribes:

Fediverse can only win by keeping its ground, by speaking about freedom, morals, ethics, values. By starting open, non-commercial and non-spied discussions. By acknowledging that the goal is not to win. Not to embrace. The goal is to stay a tool. A tool dedicated to offer a place of freedom for connected human beings. Something that no commercial entity will ever offer.

Yeah… you know, I’ve seen this EEE thing so many times in the last couple of days that it’s starting to feel like astroturf.

Here’s a funny thing - I was actually on Voat when it came apart and I watched it happen, and what happened there is, I think, very much relevant.

It wasn’t always a toxic right-wing cesspool - it was actually quite a bit like this in the early days - just people posting.

But then there was this sudden push to get people all wound up about an external threat - in that case, Reddit “powermods,” and especially the SRS brigaders. The hue and cry was that they were going to destroy the free and open forum unless we did something about it.

Sort of like how Meta is going to destroy this free and open forum unless we do something about it.

But the thing is that the constant fanning of the flames just led to increasing paranoia and hysteria and infighting and harassment and brigading and general ugliness, and when the dust all settled, the toxic right-wing authoritarians had shouted down, alienated, stifled and ultimately driven away everyone else. All in the name of “protecting” the site.

Not saying that that will necessarily happen here (especially in that particular way, since if nothing else the tankies aren’t going to give in to the righties). Just saying that I’ve already seen a forum destroyed by an obsessive fear of some bogeyman, and I’d rather not see it again.

So… let me see if I’ve got this right: Meta is going to start a Twitter-like instance on the fediverse that will be marketed to Instagram members and will be subject to Facebook’s content moderation rules, and Mastodon users who want to will be able to transfer their accounts to Meta’s instance, in which case they will be subject to Facebook’s content rules.

I keep trying to see what all of the fuss is about, but no matter how often I look at it or from how many different angles, all I see is Meta and Zuckerberg doing yet another faceplant.

It’s as if Walmart announced that they were going to open a chain of art house cinemas and market them to Walmart customers.