Didn’t have it for ET but for Disney movies that weren’t published on VHS at all because in my region they just kept rereleasing Snowwhite and Jungle Book in theaters periodically.

I’ve recorded songs off the radio too. I have copied VHSs as well later in life when a buddy had to bring over their recorder so we could hook them up to each other.

And the first music torrent was in maybe 7th grade and up. Somebody would get a new CD for their birthday or xmas and after a couple of weeks of exclusive listening Guns’n’Roses or Metallica would go from friend to friend where everybody got themselves a copy on cassette tape. There would be strategic planning like you get Michael Jackson (we didn’t know back then) and you get U2 or whatever around December.

I think this is far more normalized in the US to bring god into everything. After all, it’s one nation, under god. And in god they trust! It’s on the money after all, thoughts and prayers. And lordy, the language is full of religious references, from oh my god gosh golly to dang darn dammit. There is also the performative “I was praying for” whatever, jeez, Jesus help me. I’m already irritated by all these religious vestiges in the language.

Piety is also this sort of monstrance required for political office in the US. Even when it’s quite unbelievable, like in the case of 47 who would only own a bible if he could sell it. And if you’re not a Catholic or some Protestant, you have you be Mormon or Islamic just enough to tick the religious box. But we might draw the line at Scientology because that’s all just made up nonsense, isn’t it.

I find it offensive when people just assume I believe in any god. The older I get the more I think Christopher Hitchens had a point when he said that ardent believers in monotheist religions are predisposed to vote for and follow authoritarian leaders. One god, one fuehrer.

No, it doesn’t. Because I was not talking about physical sexual assault.

Nothing in law is simple. Legislators pass a law and after it passed that meat grinder it eventually gets brought up in courts where a second sausage is made by evaluating whose rights take precedence over others. And if we imagine the current US Supreme Court they will not ban deepfakes completely because it could limit the first amendment. And they would probably find in favor of the sad smelly asshole in his basement who made deepfake porn that was never meant to be public. So the creation of deepfakes will not be limited by law. The system can only react after the creation. By which point the damage is already done for the celebrity whose likeness was abused.

Right now it might be possible to get the companies to limit the models that can generate this stuff. But soon enough, maybe in a few years, it will be possible to train you own model on your terms that will run locally and if you’re savvy enough to set that up you’ll be savvy enough to sidestep any restrictions there as well.

Don’t impersonate without enthusiastic consent will not survive the tour up the legal system.

Yeah but it isn’t here.

All this so-called-AI generated policy meat still needs to go through the sausage grinder in both houses, filled with humans. So I think the scandal wouldn’t be as great.

The danger depends more on who you are. If you are in a position where deepfakes could be made to undermine you in your life, there is a higher danger. If you work a desk job in an accounting firm, that risk is much lower.

Deleting all your pictures from the internet is a fig leaf. How many pictures exist in other people’s photorolls that you are in? And even if you trusted all of them implicitly, how well do they do their security?

I think at this point in time, deepfakes are ultimately identifiable. By which I don’t mean anybody can tell immediately that it is one. But on repeated viewing enough people would get suspicious and when somebody analyzes the 1s and 0s it can be made certain. Society needs to adapt a delayed response tactic. This will take time but eventually we will look at deepfakes with the same skeptical eye we developed for photoshopped images. We are in the period of adjustment lag so the jeopardy is higher today than it will be a couple of years from now.

The biggest danger is for ladies because sexualized deepfakes are not only appalling but the legal system is also lagging to catch up in many places. As soon as a believable deepfake of a famous man makes the rounds, the laws are going to be tightened ASAP though.

There is also a legal battle that needs to be fought. Can I hypothetically make a deepfake sex video of my favorite female celebrity just for my own enjoyment? I could paint her oil on canvas as long as I kept it at my house. I could write fan fic and might even get away with posting that online. Could I not make this movie just for me? And if I protected my computer in a reasonable way, can I be held accountable if some other asshole leaked it onto the internet? We’ll have the answers in 10-15 years.

I don’t think you can make all deepfakes illegal so we’ll have you find a way to live with the threat.

If you want to get picky, Xwitter didn’t enshitify as laid out as a concept by Cory Doctorow. The best example is probably Amazon which went from being insanely user friendly to lock in users, to supplier-friendly and increasingly less so for users, until it had squeezed and shafted both groups. That’s enshitification and it doesn’t apply to Xwitter. They had problems to make money before a certain somebody bought it. They’ve been bleeding users since the eventually Nazi saluting manbaby bought it, who then wanted to sue advertisers who refused to buy ads on his service. There was no user lock-in and then a supplier lock-in. There was just shit. All their current problems are man made. By one specific man.

I would argue you cannot enshitify a service that was already shit. At this point this is more of a conshitidation.

Oh, man, this will affect tens of people.

I’m concerned about the resources it gobbles up but I’m not skynet scared.

The effectiveness and the benefits are overhyped by the people with a financial interest in it. We call it AI but it’s only one for two there in that it is artificial. It’s a technology in its infancy. And it hasn’t found a use case that will guarantee an ROI. And the companies involved here are running out of runway.

Cannibalism hasn’t been proven yet. But even without that, rich people not getting punished isn’t mildly infuriating. We are way past that.

And the world was already shit long before we learned about any of this. Because it was possible to get away with that shit before we found out and even still after we learned a little about it.

Billionaires aren’t the majority. Turn your morose mood into a political movement that will hold them to account.

Would the order be different in an imported fridge?

Measuring intelligence is not like measuring a cup of flour. The IQ tests are not wholly scientific. So the premise of your question is not without controversy. But if we disregard that, then: no. Very clever people still bicker and get rubbed the wrong way. Intelligent people follow populists. Conflict is not solely the result of low intelligence. We might have different types of conflict (there are fewer incidences of fisticuffs at the chess club than at football) but not fewer.

We are not very tech savy to set things up.

Find somebody near you who is. A family member who cannot ghost you would be best.

I migrated my Photos to a more expensive service called Ente. It’s been a mixed bag for me. The backup function works well but both their desktop and mobile apps are causing me trouble. Ask me about the details if you care, I won’t bore you with that chat. But in me this has brought me to plan a switch to something self-hosted when my plan expires. I still have lots of time but I’m definitely bookmarking your post.

Wouldn’t another possibility be active fare dodging? And if they do that, can’t they just fill the station and trains with so many people until they are forced to run the train to manage the crowd? I imagine all able people will go piggyback through turnstiles to half the fare at least.

In terms of potentially fineable behavior, this might be safer than creating an ad hoc ped xing on an interstate.

Maybe the NJ locals need to weigh in on how likely the constabulary will be to make use of their firearms in such a situation.

I read through that last link and then the first comment is asking why this AI wall of text. There is also very little evidence meat on that bone. A user did this, a user got that. That’s not receipts, that’s just more claims.

The claims of censorship are non sensical to me. You can still post most of that stuff, just not on that instance. An instance isn’t a democracy and no one has the right to be heard there no matter what. Your right is to go elsewhere. It’s a living room sofa problem. If you came to my house and took a dump on my sofa, I’d kick you out too. As it is my house, I get to decide what constitutes a dump. You thought it was just a fart, I smelled a shart - you’re out anyway. You are free to go sit on somebody else’s sofa. Go somewhere else, vote with your feet. Sure, tell others about my tight ass sofa rules. You still haven’t convinced me of your OG conclusion.

I’m still not excluding the possibility that there is something rotten in the state of Lemmy dot world. Maybe that admin is indeed on a power trip. What a decade on reddit and now a few years on Lemmy have shown me is that most bans are not shot from the hip. “I just said maybe Israel isn’t so nice and got banned IMMEDIATELY,” professed the user innocently. And then the admin comes back with three documented community violations including threatening the moderators with violence. Exceptions are rare. If you had a “no violence” rule, then “death to Zionists” would be functionally the same as “death to all little old ladies,” a no-go. You don’t get to decide what constitutes a dump and since the fediverse is larger than Lemmy dot world you’re also not being censored.

The people who fact check news for a living are journalists. They exist on a spectrum from dubious to trustworthy. You’ll have you find some that you like.

While it is possible today to check a lot of stuff yourself online, you can’t do it all. And if you are, you already are doing a journalist’s job.

I was looking for something similar late last year. I dare say there is no good and FOSS solution right now on Android.

Is lemmy.world anti-humanity for banning anti-Zionists?

The quick answer is: probably no. You claim this is the case, provide no receipts, and most importantly don’t place these terms into enough context. And context matters.

I don’t know if you’re right. You might be. I’m not excluding that possibility.

No instance is under any obligation to tolerate all opinions. Other admins may defederate, users may move away and block. All moderation decisions are shit. It’s much easier to have principles than to apply them equally everywhere and without fail.

If they have indeed chosen to err on the side of what I’m going to call something like antisemitic caution and remove stuff more broadly than you are comfortable with, it’s not just a question of values. It’s could also be a reflection of their experience with this topic, the resulting workload, and lack of moderation manpower. It’s much easier to ban all boobs than having to differentiate with each post if they’re breastfeeding or not, to put this in the context of past moderation problems. Facebook isn’t opposed to breastfeeding as a function to suckle our offspring but as the proprietors of their platform they can ban all boob related posts. And while this is of course within the realm of apples to oranges comparisons, I don’t think it’s justified to leap to the conclusion you did based on moderation decisions alone.