51–55 of 55 posts
> Compliance must be demonstrated by the company within five working days from the notification of the decision, and the agency established a daily fine of 50,000 reais ($8,820) for failure to do so. $8,820 * 365 = $3.2 million a year is pretty cheap for Meta to be able to do whatever they want with all the data from all 200 million Brazilians. Their annual net income is $39.10 billion, so 0.008%.
Meta spared no expenses to hide the opt-out page. The agency says that: “there were excessive and unjustified obstacles to accessing information and exercising this right”. This was one of the main reasons that obligated the agency to act.
The steps to get to the hidden opt-out page are bellow, obligating users to read the privacy policy to find a link buried deep down in the text, and requiring 2FA by email to opt out even for already logged in users - they should require 2FA to log in, not to opt out of AI training. There is no justification to require all this:
* Access your profile and go to the settings section, signaled by three bars in the top right corner
* Click on "about" at the bottom of the page
* Select the privacy policy. On this new page, the three bars in the top right corner lead to the privacy center
* Click on the arrow next to other policies and articles and select the option "How Meta uses information for generative AI features and models"
* In the nineteenth paragraph, not counting topics, is the "right to object" option. Click on it.
* Fill in and send the form. Meta confirms your identity with a numerical code sent to the email address registered on your account. Then just wait for the opt-out to be confirmed. This can take a few minutes.
This proposal gets made pretty frequently in one form or another, and (at least on HN) seems to usually get struck down on this or that procedural ground. But as the various regulatory and judicial and legislative processes grind through different parts of the modern intellectual property issue made so abundantly legible by the modern AI training data gold rush it seems ever more clear that one way or another, we’re…
> training on roughly “the commons”, The proposal in the article, however, is not about "the commons", it's about content that the users themselves produced, and then they voluntarily gave permission to Meta to use. Or are you saying that if I produce some type of material, I shouldn't be able to license it for someone else to use it freely?
This proposal gets made pretty frequently in one form or another, and (at least on HN) seems to usually get struck down on this or that procedural ground. But as the various regulatory and judicial and legislative processes grind through different parts of the modern intellectual property issue made so abundantly legible by the modern AI training data gold rush it seems ever more clear that one way or another, we’re…
> training on roughly “the commons”, The proposal in the article, however, is not about "the commons", it's about content that the users themselves produced, and then they voluntarily gave permission to Meta to use. Or are you saying that if I produce some type of material, I shouldn't be able to license it for someone else to use it freely?
That's a funny way to describe DNT headers, disallowed Meta cookies, DNS blocking all their domains, and maintaining copyright over my content.
What problem does this solve? The article only mentions that data could be used to train AI to make CSAM... which seems needlessly alarmist and inflammatory.
> The decision stems from “the imminent risk of serious and irreparable or difficult-to-repair damage to the fundamental rights of the affected data subjects,” the agency said in the nation’s official gazette.