Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

pupuweb.com

91–100 of 317 posts

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#91
post #68
post #32

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. The demonization of unions is one of the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It’s gone so far s people who will die on the hill of Jeff Bezos paying slightly more taxes because everyone seems…

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

> Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively?

Because there is a group who struggles to reconcile what looks like a contradiction - another group who appears to advocate for policies which harm themselves. The quote and its derivatives attempt to explain this apparent contradiction.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#92
post #32

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. The demonization of unions is one of the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It’s gone so far s people who will die on the hill of Jeff Bezos paying slightly more taxes because everyone seems…

I shouldn't have to belong to a particular organization (especially a politically active one) in order to have a job in my field.

You shouldn't, nor should organizations push the limits of what people accept before they snap. But here we are.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#95

There is no way they will be able to make an AI at this point that will A) Be accurate B) Work across multiple contexts C) Run efficiently on billions of messages This will just result in many false positives, and unnecessary eavesdropping on employees personal conversations. Once its revealed an organization is using this, people will quickly move all conversations to another platform, even if policy forbids that. R…

accuracy isn't a strict requirement though

if you accidentally fire 10% of good people you still have 90% of them left, and if that lets you fire 80% of the staff that are committing thought-crime it's probably a win.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#96
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

> Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Because there is a group who struggles to reconcile what looks like a contradiction - another group who appears to advocate for policies which harm themselves. The quote and its derivatives attempt to explain this apparent contradiction.

Not P, but I agree. One does not have to like a billionaire or even dream about being one to disagree with disproportionate taxation out of other principles or concerns.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason. For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). The person makes this argument against the idea of raising taxes, however they aren't explaining why it shouldn't be done Since they don't offer an explanation the assumption is they are either already rich or think they'…

That’s assuming people can’t be purely altruistic and principled and they must hold every position they do for personal gain.

It would not be altruistic to be for a person with a monopoly of assets to hold more of those assets while other people don't have homes.

Principled makes sense though.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#99
Wish I could read the page but apparently my ad blocker is too offensive. Well I'd be fine with supporting the publisher through online ads but I am really not okay with the tracking those advertisers do. You ditch the tracking and any annoying ads and I'll ditch the ad blocker. Until then, we have to agree to disagree, the Faustian bargain of internet advertising is untenable.
Post reply on HN