411–420 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean the analogy sounds about right, why downvoting?
it sounds wrong, on the account of I never had my "ability to buy groceries" taken away from me without proving my vaccination status, I've only ever seen it used for travel purposes.
I quit facebook over a decade ago. Then, a few months back, I was under some pressure to sell something, and the facebook marketplace appears to be the way to go locally. So I tried to create a facebook account. They wanted to scan my face, and in a moment of weakness, I performed the ritual. Thirty seconds later, they suspended my account due to violations of their terms of service: "this decision cannot be appealed…
I don't think you can assume your identity was compromised. I know the Facebook denial dialog suggests that "unusual activity" was detected and you need to access it via your mobile device. Of course as you know that doesn't help. I signed on for Meta enhanced support for a month (nb, don't bother doing this, it's a waste of money) and had numerous voice calls with pandering support people who assured me it had nothi…
I’m sorry am I reading this right? You now have to pay for the privilege of getting support so you can participate in Zuck’s infostealer so that he can then sell your data and make money off it? I think I’m getting too old for tech.
I quit facebook over a decade ago. Then, a few months back, I was under some pressure to sell something, and the facebook marketplace appears to be the way to go locally. So I tried to create a facebook account. They wanted to scan my face, and in a moment of weakness, I performed the ritual. Thirty seconds later, they suspended my account due to violations of their terms of service: "this decision cannot be appealed…
Same thing happened to me. Except I created a new Facebook account using my work email. I had to use my personal Facebook account. Meta has become so awful.
It’s been a while already, and they started from pretty unethical so it’s not like it was ever great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is not age verification. It is identity verification. > You can change a password. You cannot change your face. > This is not a popularity contest, and refusal is not a vote you are trying to win These were a couple sentences that were immediate flags to me. There've been countless articles written on this (I can dig them up if you want), but IMO there are pretty clear semantic rhythms you start to notice. It is…
These are normal patterns in US English. The zeal to accuse limits the scope of possible responses. There are all sorts of things humans do when writing that LLMs mimic — em-dashes for instance — that are entirely legitimate ways to communicate but get shouted down for… reasons? Surely you’re aware that LLMs were trained on the ways humans write specifically to mimic them? Yes? So what’s the gripe? Someone cranked ou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just minimize threats, but often to maximize their power. Lobbyists do not just try to convince a politician that X is a good idea. Lobbyists give the politician money to introduce already drafted legislation, and then give other politicians money to support it. And if they can get the legislation passed in one place, they'll try it again. The result is that suspiciously similar legislation appears in many places…
I'm not convinced this is about money as much as it is about blackmail, given how centralized data collection has become and how many intelligence agencies appear to have access to numerous 0-days for routinely gathering additional information. It could be both things as well. What bothers me most isn't their corruption, but their apparent belief that it won't eventually affect them or their families - perhaps sooner…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you overestimates the protection Tor provides. We have seen multiple cases of people getting caught on there, and CIA probably owns half the exit nodes anyways.
Maybe provide sources, or point out a specific claim on the Tor project website that you feel overestimates the capabilities or protections. BGP attacks are largely defeated by onionservices. And while governments have the ability to create exit nodes, so does anybody.
Who runs this site? There doesn't appear to be any information on this. A whois search returns nothing illuminating. So... is it part of the parable they're trying to tell that they're seeing who will go against the exact sort of advice they're giving? Or does this -just happen to be- the kind of shady data gathering that they're warning against? to quote the site itself, "We spent a generation teaching people the fi…
How? There are no forms on the website.
Wouldn't it actually be logical for a person advocating for privacy not disclosing his identity?
Can't we even write a short text like this without LLMs anymore, not even when it's really important, when it's about humans against the inhumane ?
I think it is great that people point out LLM generated articles here on HN. Sadly, it feels like I am slowly loosing my skill to identify LLM speak. Maybe I am getting worn out of all LLM content... So, please, list the indicators and telltale signs from the specific article or blog post (like others have done here already). At least I would appreciate it a lot.
Its quite simple, at least by HN rules. If you dont like an article, post "This is LLM" and move on. Within 5 minute your post will be voted t o the top.
Easy karma farming!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't answer who is collating all that arrest-targeting information. It isn't news that adults can be irresponsible with age-verification credentials. Letting children use adult's credit cards isn't criminalized either. Adult sites not default-serving underage users does not require fine-grained surveillance or criminalizing clueless parents/adults.
The government, obviously, when the sites call it to check their tokens
And on the other issue, requiring sites to verify ages before serving adult material, isn't the same as criminalizing shared/mishandled age verification credentials. Its a mitigation issue, not a nuclear threat.
I am left wondering if you had any coherent point to make.