atrielienz

@atrielienz@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

atrielienz,

You don’t even need to do that. You can go to the power down menu on Android 14 and select lockdown. Even from the lock screen without unlocking the phone.

atrielienz,

I wish.

atrielienz,

Pause a video to answer a phone call or reply to a text or look up some information? Here’s an ad at full volume! Seems legit. Sure. Do it. What could go wrong.

atrielienz, (edited )

I don’t know my smart TV hasn’t been hooked up to the Internet and my streaming stick doesn’t show me those kinds of ads. I do pay to avoid it. I have youtube premium. In fact I was grandfathered into the $7.99 rate from having Google play music back in the day and my rates only just increased. The point I was trying to make is that this isn’t going to just stay as the static ad. It will absolutely change with time because Google’s losing money on the ad revenue business (it’s just not as lucrative as they need it to be to keep investors happy). The static ads probably will go to full blown video ads at some point (and extensions will counter that by muting tabs and auto stopping playing popup videos until the end user clicks the play button etc because people will try to get around this). This is just the newest progression in a long line of progressions of terrible ad implementation.

I don’t want billboards in my living room though. It’s reasonable to not want billboards in your living room.

atrielienz,

Not as far as I can see.

atrielienz,

That explains that then. I made my comment before bed and didn’t see the replies til the next morning.

atrielienz, (edited )

It does when it’s a foreign power affecting or influencing policy or national security. Which is the problem. They aren’t banning tik tok. They are saying it has to sell itself. There are stipulations on that sale. But in the grand scheme of things the government isn’t going to reach into citizens phones and take tik tok away. The people who have it will still be able to use the app unless the owners of the company themselves decide otherwise and act accordingly. In that case it would be tik tok affecting “free speech”, not the government affecting free speech.

Even in the event that it is no longer available for download on app stores the government can’t stop you from using a VPN set to the Philippines to download the app. And since that is the case the government is not actively depriving anyone of the platform. They are curtailing the platforms ability to continue to do business in the US which is in their purview especially when in pertains to national security.

You asked a question to another commenter about how they feel about the government effectively controlling modes of communication and platforms for freedom of speech. You neglect to point out or take into consideration that the government does so all the time when it pertains to public safety and national security.

I am not a fan of this legislation. I firmly understand that Tik Tok is basically Google with the rails blown off and both platforms and companies are predicated on collection and use of user data in ways that infringe on user privacy. As a result the only reason Google (or Facebook et all) aren’t being forced to sell is because they are American companies so their data is accessible to the government as another way to surveil the general public.

However I have a question for you. At what point does something become dangerous enough to the end user that the government should step in? Your phone provider? Regulated by the government. You posting terroristic threats on any platform? Regulated by the government. You can’t post that you plan to shoot up a school or send a senator a bomb. Regulations for the purposes of protecting the national security of the country and the general public are already in place for private individuals and businesses.

At what point should the government not be able to regulate a business?

atrielienz,

It probably changes the date on the calendar icon every day too.

atrielienz,

The federal government leaked mine and I had to lock my credit and change my social security number to get it to stop. Can’t stop paying taxes though. That’s how they getcha.

atrielienz,

No. It isn’t that. Google absolutely will build a profile around you with “your anonymized” data for the purposes of ad aggregation. They collect information about everyone who uses their services. They do this in order to push ads not agendas. That’s a major difference. In addition you can and many people do go out of their way to degoogle or not use any Google services. Making it so that Google does not have an effective or even viable way to build a profile on those people. You can’t do that with tik tok.

Even if you’re like me and have never actively used the tik tok website, app, or service, everyone you know who has the tik tok app is feeding it your information. It has system level permissions to a lot of apps. Asks for a lot of access to things the app doesn’t need in order to run. Each time they use the app it takes information from all the other apps on the device. Including things like your texts phone logs, what banking apps you use, what medical apps you use. And it buys data from other brokers to build profiles on not just its users but anyone it’s user’s know and communicate with using that device. It then collates that data to build better profiles of non-users.

This information doesn’t have to be stored on American servers because it’s not the information of users. It’s the information of non-users. And even if it were it would still be accessible by the company and the CCP.

We already know that some bad actors in the company have tried to use the data bytedance collect in order to track journalists with the intension of finding out who their sources are. The company called that bad judgement. I call it a major red flag to add to the stack.

atrielienz,

The CEO can’t apparently effectively communicate to his staff what the workflow priorities of the company should be and he’s blaming them for basically contributing to that workflow “inefficiently” because he’s a bad leader who obviously didn’t lay off the right people (middle managers).

Additionally he’s promising shareholders a pipedream he’s having trouble delivering on because they do not have control over the continued and rising cost of licensing and nobody seems to want to do anything at all about that. The whole industry is over a barrel and they just accept it. And so do we as consumers.

atrielienz,

Not just silly. Extremely damaging. We don’t even treat most other crimes minors commit this way. Records can often be expunged for other crimes. At the age of 18 they are generally sealed. But not in this case.

This is the government doing a bad job of regulating technology they do not fully understand the scope of in an attempt to save the children by punishing them sometimes for life. Over what essentially amounts to heavy flirting between people of their own age group.

Child porn is not okay and it should be illegal. But the law cannot always be applied in a way that is equal because a kid sending another kid a nude of themselves is not the same as an adult using the nude of a child for sexual gratification or excitement. One of those things is a natural normal thing. The other is extremely reprehensible and damaging to the victims used to create those images.

atrielienz,

They should tape it to supply some strain relief and prevent someone tripping over the cords from tearing the whole thing apart.

atrielienz,

I don’t see that. I see a lot of people who assume these two groups are the same people. But most of us don’t use Twitter still. That’s why their non-bot userbase is steadily declining. People are leaving. People are abandoning the platform.

atrielienz, (edited )

I get the appeal of twitter. I’ve said this before. You want to know tour dates? When that next book in the series is coming out. When a new game trailer is available? Movie trailer? You want to know about when a vlog creator posts their newest content? Twitter was good for those things. I used to use it for that. Now it’s just useless for most things. And I’m back to using RSS feeds, more than half of which don’t work properly.

atrielienz,

That’s fair but not everyone does it this way. I actually switched to twitter from RSS when google and the like basically pushed for it to go away and now I’m back on RSS with mixed results because twitter has become a dumpster fire. Having full control isn’t working out great for me and probably a fair few others.

atrielienz,

We clearly need to bring back the big red rubber stamp. Just stamp it “SCAM” and leave it somewhere like a bulletin board. Because if they want to waste their money and paper, we should make it expensive for them. The stamp isn’t expensive really and ink pads are fairly cheap and last a long time.

atrielienz,

I think he rather means the market should be regulated.

atrielienz,

Ads don’t support YouTube. Actually if you have premium that does a better job supporting both YouTube and the creators because they get paid more per view with premium than they would with ads. That’s why google pushes premium so hard and is bundling it with the services it thinks it can get away with.

What you’re describing has basically already happened and the ads are getting worse because they just don’t provide enough income.

atrielienz,

There’s a tool that does this. It speeds up the ad so it takes only a couple of seconds. The ad is “watched” but muted the whole time so you don’t actually have to deal with it.

Edit: The article isn’t great but the tool is sort of the same as what you mentioned. 9to5google.com/…/youtube-ads-speed-up-workaround/

atrielienz,

How do you tag them?

atrielienz,

Thank you.

atrielienz,

Guess I’ll pick this moment to remind people that this forced arbitration thing is a scare tactic and is not legally binding. You can still sue (assuming you have the funds or a lawyer willing to work pro bono).

atrielienz,

At this rate it seems like it’s time to just start looking for congress people’s data that their providers sell online and posting it somewhere like twitter. Because this will only be a problem they take seriously when it detrimentally affects them.

atrielienz,

The legislation doesn’t work because part of the problem is what “products” these LLM’s are being attached to. We already had this argument in the early and mid oughts in the US. And nothing was done really about the misinformation proliferated on places like Twitter and Facebook specifically because of what they are. Social media sites are protected by section 230 in the US and are not considered news aggregators. That’s the problem.

People can’t seem to agree on whether or not they should be. I think if the platform (not the users) is pushing something as a legitimate news source it shouldn’t be protected by 230 for the purposes of news aggregation. But I don’t know that our laws are even attempting to keep up with new tech like LLM’S.

NY’s for a chatbot that was actively giving out information that was pseudo legal advice. Suggesting that Businesses should do illegal things. They aren’t even taking it down. They aren’t being forced to take it down.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • megavids
  • khanakhh
  • magazineikmin
  • ethstaker
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • InstantRegret
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • tester
  • JUstTest
  • modclub
  • everett
  • cubers
  • tacticalgear
  • Durango
  • GTA5RPClips
  • thenastyranch
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • cisconetworking
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •