That’s really no different than saying, “You can’t expect billionaires to stop being evil when it would significantly impact their income.”

Not really, I don’t consider bands to be as parasitic as billionaires, because they at least do something to earn their money. If you’re a billionaire, you can just hire someone to take your place, leave, and profit forever, but if all the members of a band step aside to let a whole different crew of people take over, that band probably isn’t gonna have anywhere near the same following or quality as it did before.

Still, I do kind of understand the point.

The network effect works both ways. See Myspace and Friendster.

MySpace is actually a great example of this, because Facebook found a way to remove switching costs for users moving to Facebook, which is why Facebook succeeded.

Facebook made a bot that would automatically scrape all your MySpace activity from friends, and forward it to Facebook.

Moving to Facebook meant not having to leave anyone behind, because you could still see everything from them and respond to them, but you got a better experience, so that’s what many people did. Eventually, the people they were getting forwarded messages from on MySpace just switched to Facebook too.

Leaving Facebook now does not carry these same benefits. There is no other app that allows you to do this without Facebook cracking down on it and severing your access. Hence, switching costs are very high.

Facebook opened the door to themselves, and then locked the door shut, leaving you only the fire escape as an exit.

Exactly. People love convenience until it removes the only actual benefits of the thing it’s replacing, but by then they’re dependent on it.

If it listens to things for you so you can look at them 10 seconds later when you realize you didn’t hear, why should your brain even bother paying attention to ANYTHING in the moment? If it summarizes your day, how much less are you going to remember because you’re just not forcing your brain to think about what you’ve done today?

I know for a fact I’ve gotten much better at remembering things that happen throughout my day after I started taking a note every day with what I did. If I had something recording it all for me, I’d just become even more reliant on that thing to even remember what happened at all.

That’s fair. Still, I do think it’s a tad unreasonable to expect of people, when it can significantly impact their popularity and thus their income, when the actual effect of them leaving is usually that… essentially nothing happens to the company they’re leaving from.

Unfortunately, Facebook and its users likely won’t care much if someone leaves the platform, as long as they can keep scrolling. It’s gotta be on a very large scale, with a lot of people giving up portions of their audience before more people start genuinely moving to alternatives.

You could make a super long argument against this but I think there’s a few simple points (that you can use any number of, you don’t really need all of these at once for most people) that usually get it across to people, at least from my experience.

There’s the moral/emotional argument:

“You do have something to hide. Wanna unlock your phone and let me go through all your messages/photos/emails, leave the bathroom door open all the time, and never close your blinds? Even if you aren’t doing something illegal AND have no problem with me seeing all your conversations and data, privacy is still a comfort for many people”

…and there’s the monetary arguments:

“If a company is collecting that data, it’s because they make money off it. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry, and it’s the only reason Google, Facebook, etc can physically exist. If they know more about you, they can manipulate you into spending money with advertisers easier, allow political campaigns to manipulate your opinion more effectively, etc”

“You might not have a problem with how your data is used now, but if the law changes, or a corporation decides to do something different, suddenly data about your health and finances that was just for ads might then become a way to increase your health insurance pricing to the max you can afford”

If you can’t spend a minute and a half reading, you don’t have any ground to stand on in calling my point “fascist apologia”.

Either be willing to actually assess what I’m saying on its merits, or keep just going with your gut instinct and instantly responding to anything that’s even remotely contradictory to your opinion by calling it fascist, but that doesn’t change the point being made.

If you don’t care to even read my point in the first place, I don’t care to respond further, since you’re clearly not interested in anything other than feeling self-righteous without thinking about it.

I’d hardly call explaining the network effect and collective action problem fascist apologia, but you do you.

All I’m saying is you can’t expect someone to leave behind most of their audience’s primary way of communicating with them scot-free. There are always consequences.

Let’s say they stop posting on Instagram. Out of those 2.7 million followers, only a fraction will find them on another platform, and thus they simply lose their ability to message to all the people they left behind. That hurts them.

You can still think it’s a net good for society for them to leave, or that it would meaningfully hurt Facebook (it wouldn’t unless most people also left, but again, collective action problem), but you can’t act like they don’t face consequences by doing it. It’s not “fascist bootlicker apologia” to say that leaving some of your audience behind on a platform reduces your audience.

They chose to advertise themselves on the “Grandma’s Racist Rants And Old White Guys With Sunglasses Who Hate Poor People” platform.

While true, they also advertised themselves on a platform most Americans use.

Say what you want about someone’s ability to not use a social media platform in the first place, but if you’re a band that depends on… people, it’s hard to just decide not to put yourself out there on a platform where so many people are.

The network effect is real. It’s where people’s friends, family, celebrities, bands, etc all are. Leaving means leaving people who are important to you.

A lot of people find it easier to leave platforms like Twitter now, because the platform is such a shell of its former self that it doesn’t even provide what many people originally came there for, but if you’re on Instagram, Facebook, etc, it still often provides people with easy communication to/from family and friends, and organizations like bands with access to an audience, promotion, visibility, etc.

Leaving the platform means leaving fans, and giving up visibility. I wish everyone could just quit Meta’s platforms and crush the company, but there’s a very simple collective action problem at play here that makes it very difficult, don’t discount that.

iOS also has Brave, which apparently created the adblock engine Mozilla borrowed (and weakened)

Afaik that’s a currently non-used library in Firefox desktop. For iOS, The Verge claims it’s just Apple’s WebKit Content Blocker + EasyList.

https://www.theverge.com/news/987247/mozilla-firefox-ad-blocker-ios-launch

all android devices have been using file based disk encryption since several Android versions now.

All Android devices are supposed to support it, but not all do. (or at least, not all do effectively without compromising the cryptographic root of trust by not implementing proper hardware security chips)

I’ll grant it to you on the scopes, PIN changes, etc, but realistically I just don’t think anyone can justify GrapheneOS being something that should be supported on Fairphone given how absolutely desolate the phone looks with regard to any attempt at all to hardware security.

It really depends on what security level you want out of a phone

It does, but that’s exactly my point. GrapheneOS will provide you essentially no more security than any other alternative Android operating system, should it have to operate on a Fairphone with all those features not supported by a Fairphone stripped away.

Unless Fairphone adds more hardware security features that are standard on most other phones, and highly supported on Pixels, installing a heavily crippled GrapheneOS on a Fairphone would get you essentially none of the benefits of GrapheneOS in the first place.

Entirely lacking disk encryption for typical users due to not having a secure element is a pretty major flaw.

It’s also missing hardware accelerated virtualization which is necessary for much of GrapheneOS’s sandboxing, has weak security for other keys in the OS keystore, is missing hardware memory tagging which makes it much easier for apps to use overflow attacks, doesn’t have proper verified boot support once a custom alternative OS is flashed, and leaves exposed debugging APIs even when the phone is locked.

This breaks:

• Secure app spawning
• Memory corruption protection
• Integer overflow protection
• Most of Graphene’s kernel hardening
• Much of Graphene’s attack surface reduction abilities
• Hardware-based attestation and security monitoring
• Quick tile protection pre-unlock
• Debugging access prevention
• Verified Boot
• The security of your PIN against any automated attack

At that point, GrapheneOS can’t physically provide you essentially any security anymore.

It wasn’t just the update cycle either, it’s that they don’t have the physical hardware chips to support Graphene’s minimum requirements for security, which would severely weaken any benefits you actually get from GrapheneOS.

If his life was on the line, you’d see him change his tune real quick, but it’s not, so he’ll sacrifice 114,000 people for the sake of his donors’ stock portfolios. Fuck you, Jeffries.

Some patterns can. This one won’t.

Adversarial patterns/noise can confuse cameras, but that’s usually done not by tricking it into thinking, for example, that this one van is actually a hundred mini vans crammed into the same space, but by tricking it into thinking there’s not a car there because the pattern just confuses it and it recognizes it as any random sequence of random objects and things simultaneously.

Just slapping a bunch of car photos won’t make it think it’s a car, because the little photos are tiny, don’t move like a car, are still visually distinct from the background, and are on a much larger car-shaped object. If your car has patterns that makes it look like the general concept of an asphalt road, road signs, lamp posts, etc, then it might be enough to confuse the camera into thinking the odd blob shapes are something else, because cars on the road are also always passing on top, in front of, and by asphalt, road signs, lamp posts, etc.

The cameras don’t have depth perception, so if your car looks close enough to the road and objects around it, it’ll blend right in, to the camera.

Especially given it has a similar effect to how spam emails are often deliberately bad so they just don’t waste their time with people that waste some of their time before wising up. If you only get the most easily duped people in the first place, that’s a lot less time wasted.

With LLMs, you’re explicitly targeting people that are less likely to strongly ideologically object to things (like LLMs, or genocide funding) on moral grounds, you’re getting the people that are willing to just get a quick answer without having to look into it deeply, and you’re getting the people who’s sole goal it is to flood the web with any SEO-optimized slop they can with the least effort possible.

LLMs self select for people not willing to put in cognitive effort, that are easily influenced and less careful about fact-checking things.

I love how the only arguments people have against them is “they’re ugly” and “they’ll take away parking spots” as if piles of trash bags look better, and NYC doesn’t already have an expansive public transit network with plans to increase bus service.

This will not work. AI-enabled surveillance cameras are more than capable of determining that it’s a wrap on a car, rather than multiple cars all somehow moving in the exact same direction in the exact same area while all facing in incorrect directions relative to the camera.

If anything, it’s just another data point, because Flock cameras also catalog details about your vehicle like stickers, color, wraps, graffiti, dents, etc.

Two is many?

And no, if you think spellcheck and language translators are slop, then unfortunately for you, a sizeable chunk of all written content ever created on the internet has been “slop” since far before LLMs even existed.

Regardless, I think it’s clear at this point you don’t give a fuck and just want to be angry, so I’ll stop and hopefully you won’t burst a blood vessel or something.

Please calm down.

“the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited”

“[LLM generated] edits to existing pages may be reverted without review, and pages where the editor is the only significant contributor may be nominated for a special proposed deletion process”

Does that seem like condoning slop to you?

Again, there are only two highly limited exceptions: spellcheck (whaddaya know, the thing who’s entire purpose is to predict likely words is good at being a thesaurus and grammar checker.), and translation (you must be skilled in both used languages, re-check every source and its claims, and read through the entire article for hallucinations while crosschecking with the original document’s other language version)

This is why I stated earlier that you seem to just want something to be mad about. Wikipedia is just only allowing LLMs to be used for cases they already allowed with non-LLM tools prior, that LLMs are also more typically reliable in, while mandating extensive human review.

You are getting angry and calling me a dumbass because Wikipedia allows the narrow functions of something performing the exact same functions as spellcheck or Google Translate 💀

Yeah I totally get your initial assumption, but as far as I can tell this is basically just making fun of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” type of person who thinks that if they just vote against taxing the rich now, then when they inevitably become rich and successful one day, then they’ll benefit.