banner pic is With You by Artkitt-Creations
Max & Chloe ♥ 4 ever
counterpoint: quick broen fox is corporatized af while sphinx of black quartz has one hell of a vibe. you’re right that the fox is comfy because the cozy zone is the only spot where fun and corpos intersect and this one just so happens to fall into it but keeping it people-centric was never the point.
case in point: the test sentence we use in my native language translates to “floodproof mirror drill” to test out all our weird diacritics. no autumn vibes there, only corpos
they spent 10 figures on openai already. 8 figures for the whole openai team is pennies
the average lemmy user has 3 alts factoid is just statistical error. the average lemmy user has 0 alts. alts georg, who lives on linux.community apparently and has 20,000 alts, is a statistical outlier adn should not be counted
yup, and when in doubt, just do some few-shot prompting
do you have an example of the russian federation getting attacked by a near-peer adversary without the now defunct soviet union defending it?
no, the premium stuff doesn’t give you api access. which is total bs, but yeah, it’s only for that grey interface. (i’m also quite salty that the playground has no easy to access image inputs but that’s beside the point)
you’re completely right about self-hosting sd, it’s just a matter of prompting. sd workflows tend to get a little more experimental but i guess you could still make chatgpt write a few prompts that are close to correct and just manually rerun if an image failed
you can already api into chatgpt and dall-e 3 as one cohesive service, and make a system in an afternoon’s work that reads the article, decides on a thumbnail, and automatically generates one. the whole thing costs like 8 cents per article.
i thought you were referring to pooh as “xitler”, lol
at this point i genuinely believe that you’re just trolling. some companies like sony and apple absolutely do have this level of bootlickers who constantly move goalposts and try to convince people how they are ackshually right to do their extremely anti-consumer moves. but facebook? give me a break lmao. but even for a troll it’s such a stupid hill to die on
i believe we adequately explored why your idea that corporations have the right to coerce people into giving up their data is idiotic. so idk, keep trolling and insert your next goalpost below this line:
you’re just hell-bent on missing the point, aren’t you?
just stop. your idea that the loss of a facebook account is not a detriment will never stand up in court, nor should it.
And you have a right to object to that.
https://gdpr.eu/article-21-right-to-object/
https://gdpr.eu/Recital-42-Burden-of-proof-and-requirements-for-consent/
Threatening to disable a user’s means of communication as retaliation for an objection is antithetical to Article 21 of the GDPR, and goes directly against Recital 42. Removing your facebook page is a detriment. If there is a detriment to not consenting, consent is considered invalid, therefore facebook has no legal basis to process the data of anyone who clicked “use for free” on the prompt in the original post.
Read carefully:
You 👏 cannot 👏 make 👏 personal 👏 data 👏 the 👏 price 👏 of 👏 a 👏 service.
It’s literally that simple. This is not about whether the product is essential or not, it never was. It’s whether this business practice is legitimate or not. The GDPR clearly believes it’s not and it’s for a reason.
If you do not need a facebook page to live, why provide it for free at all? Just make people either pay or delete their page. Do not bribe them with free shit to manipulate them into giving up their data. That’s all there is to it.
Where exactly is the coercion here? The choices in order to maintain a Facebook account you either pay a fee or let them use your data to advertise to you.
right there. you’re a parody of yourself lmao.
a facebook account cannot simultaneously hold enough value that it’s worth compromising your privacy for and not hold value so that the threat of taking it away is not coercion. the enemy cannot be both strong and weak at once. the only way to resolve this dichotomy is to posit your privacy itself holds no value and is therefore a fair price to pay for something that also holds no value, but that’s just absolutely ridiculous to begin with.
you also had your answers to your questions about which part should be illegal, multiple times. to then ask the same questions again because you “don’t see it”, playing dumb like that, is just manipulative. why are you so dead set on corporate bootlicking?
i wish the eu could stop fucking around on this one. fines for gdpr violations can reach up to 20 million euros or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher. if they actually prosecute over this, it will be far more than a slap on the wrist. (which is why everyone was so scared of the gdpr back in 2018, but apparently that didn’t really last)
genocide doesn’t just mean murder, it means destruction of a people, which can be done by destroying identities even without killing the people behind those identities. i don’t think it’s inaccurate.
said other poster is actively advocating for a form of conversion therapy, just on little kids instead of adults, while questioning whether trans people are even real or just a delusion. if you hang around literally any oppressed group you’ll see this “well-educated genuine concern” and conditional support rhetoric all the time. it’s veiled bigotry, nothing more.
no, ever since 2018 when the gdpr actually went into effect, they had to allow users to opt out of data processing individually for different purposes. like, if you want to allow facebook to process your data for improving their site but not for marketing purposes, you need to be able to set that, and facebook needs to respect that. as such, you had the option to use the site without “paying for it with your data” at all.
and if that’s not a viable business model and they need to charge a subscription fee, that’s alright. there’s nothing in the gdpr that says you cannot charge for services. the problematic part here is that they do provide a free service but only if you consent to data processing. like i said, i’m not a lawyer, but i’m pretty sure that’s illegal, and it absolutely should be illegal. if they decide to provide a free tier (or a paid tier for that matter), it needs to be available even if you don’t consent for unrelated data processing. they’re not obligated to provide anything, but if they do provide something, they cannot discriminate against users who don’t want to share their data.
that’s the problematic bit here. privacy cannot be a premium feature. facebook is trying to charge for something here that should be available to all users, whether or not the underlying product is freely available or not.
then don’t host the site if they don’t want to. or charge people for shit if they want to. i’m not asking for them to not do that, i’m asking for one thing and one thing only: don’t make service, free or not, conditional to consenting for data processing not related to providing that service. that shit, to my best knowledge, is illegal in the eu, and it’s for a damn good reason.
facebook is not entitled to a profit either just because they’re for-profit. they need to earn it. and no, they don’t have a right to take a “whatever means necessary” approach on it – just like a company cannot legally rob people, or cannot legally entice minors into gambling addictions to make that money, in the eu it also cannot coerce people into giving up their personal data just so it can then profit off of that either. consent for that needs to be given willingly, without pressure, and without deception. why is this principle so hard to understand?
you paint some ridiculous strawman arguments here in your efforts to lick the zuck’s boots, but i never once asked for facebook to continue giving their service for free if they don’t want to. the only thing i said is “paying with your data” is not a valid idea under the gdpr (and honestly, it shouldn’t be a thing in any civilized country.) if facebook relies on it, tough shit, their options are to figure out an alternate revenue stream or go out of business. that’s how it works for every other business as well.
have you considered that maybe covid just gave people some much needed time to sit back, relax, and recognize things about themselves?
this isn’t rocket science. i get the shtick of the “enlightened” centrist but when one side just wants to exist and the other side wants a trans genocide the right answer isn’t maybe a little genocide, as a treat. and if you don’t know how to tell apart conflicting data about trans people, you’d do well to actually listen to them for once, as opposed to discrediting them as biased and “just one side”.
then offer the subscription service as the only option. if they want to do that, it’s on them. but you can tell by the dark pattern on this ui element that that’s not their main goal, they just want to use the threat of having to pay to coerce people into consenting to data processing.
it’s not about entitlement, it’s about playing fair. removing the option to “pay with your data”, and leaving only the subscription or cancellation as options would be fair play. it would also destroy facebook but that’s on them, it’s their decision to make. but if they decide to provide a free service of any kind, they cannot discriminate against those who wish to choose privacy.
and if we’re being realistic, they’re not expecting even 1% of their user base to pay. they are, however, expecting to keep nearly 100% of their user base. that’s what makes this about coercion – if they didn’t have the option to coerce people (and i’m fairly sure they don’t have it legally, but again, i am not a lawyer) the options presented would be very different, because facebook itself wouldn’t be able to afford to only give its service to paid users. you’d probably have a free tier with optional privacy included, which is missing some features, or a paid tier with extra features and privacy included (hopefully non-optionally, but it’s facebook so they’d probably still try to track you).
and yet you should be allowed in a kfc? double standards smh