• They/Them

Trite, contrived, mediocre, milquetoast, amateurish, infantile, cliche-and-gonorrhea-ridden paean to conformism, eye-fucked me, affront to humanity, war crime, should literally be tried for war crimes, resolutely shit, lacking in imagination, uninformed reimagining of, limp-wristed, premature, ill-informed attempt at, talentless fuckfest, recidivistic shitpeddler, pedantic, listless, savagely boring, just one repulsive laugh after another.


My homepage
mxsd.ca/
Telegram
@Mx_Self_Destruct
Signal
MxSelfDestruct.42
Soulseek
MxSelfDestruct

plumpan
@plumpan
This post has content warnings for: headlines, tech bullshit, ai.

MxSelfDestruct
@MxSelfDestruct

I think that with respect to content that is already on the open web, the social contract of that content since the 1990s has been it is fair use," he opined. "Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it. That has been freeware, if you like. That's been the understanding.

dude what the fuck are you talking about. what world do you live in. how do I get there.

"fair use, no copyright infringement intended!"
—Mustafa Suleyman


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @plumpan's post:

imagining a future where the public-facing internet is a giant facade, full of meaningless garbage specifically designed for LLMs to slurp up in the hopes that it will irreparably corrupt their datasets, while the real stuff meant for real human eyes is locked away behind the aforementioned elaborate verification systems that LLMs have no hope to ever crack

This…. Is not what “freeware” has ever meant, come on man

Like I’m extremely pro fair use and all that but this is like.. someone intentionally interpreting it in the most cynical possible way

That last part, "if you don't put up a sign explicitly saying no then that's consent for me to do whatever I want"

once again microsoft not beating the "has about the same understanding of consent as a sex pest" allegations

To be fair I think this is a mentality shared by most of the tech industry (and probably other lucrative sectors too), not just microsoft.

Microsoft is just the worst at hiding it, as they're usually the worst at everything.

so if a book is free to read at the library, and they'll even let me take it home, this must mean that I am also allowed to make copies and replace the author's name with my own and sell it?

because you are granted the right to look at a thing does not mean that it belongs to you now, this is logic that most household pets can understand

in reply to @MxSelfDestruct's post: