Olives @olives@qoto.org

Remember, I say "AI" in quotes. That roughly means artificial "intelligence".

Just because someone *can* do something (although, since it involves "AI", who knows what weird way it might fail) doesn't mean that they *should*.

If you are wondering, the bugs in the instance haven't been fixed yet. I still don't see the local feed.

I'm surprised that Microsoft is still at it with Recall.

I'm trying to use replies to the post instead of QTs here because these can render as links and I don't think people click on links as much.

One reason I don't do this is because I don't really want to create a lot of noise on tags by pulling in every tag that might be vaguely relevant to a post.

There's someone who goes around using something like four to ten tags in almost every take or reply he makes, and it feels a lot like that.

"obnoxious commenters"

I think it is actually a good example of how just breaking down any random boundary is not necessarily helpful.

For instance, let's say someone has an edgy blog.

If it's on something like the fediverse though, then that edgy blog is slurped into the same space as countless other things. All of a sudden, instead of being cushioned in it's own corner, it is viewed as an object of debate and anyone and everyone might want to get in on that.

Did removing that boundary help?

This opinion is probably not the end all and be all of opinions, lol.

I don't #understand #people who #insist on #talking like this.

If the problem was just a couple of people making edgy posts in a corner of the Internet, it wouldn't be much of a problem. Well, maybe someone might not like that, but it's not as if it would get much attention.

So, I figured out what specifically bugs the very rare trolls. Saying that people shouldn't be treated like garbage, because they think you are talking about them, even if it has nothing to do with them, lol.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/09/us-government-considers-historic-break-up-of-google-in-antitrust-case/ What do you think of this?

When I first saw how much data Facebook asks from their users to display on their profiles, I think they call them "walls" (many years ago), I was very surprised.

If we're on the fediverse for long enough, maybe we'll learn another language or two by exposure. That would be cool.

It's not like Facebook is Linkedin (I'm not arguing that Linkedin *should* have more info), why do they need to know where someone works? (And it'd be concerning if they were because that is blurring personal / professional boundaries).

If someone who knows you wants to know that, they can just ask you.

Something which some people miss is that it is not simply that Facebook uses people's data in one way or another.

Facebook is the ultimate data hog. For the profiles, they want your name, they want your phone number, they want your location, they want to know where you work, they want everything.

It is designed such that there is always an excuse for them to ask for more data from you. It might be "convenient" in some way.
#privacy

To look at it another way, if Zuckerberg suddenly decided he didn't want to use people's data in this way, would it suddenly become a good idea to post all this information onto his platforms? I don't think so.

I don't think that "AI" makes personal privacy suddenly start to matter.

Rather, people like Zuckerberg have been telling people that privacy doesn't matter for decades and to post their photos and info onto his platforms.

Conventionally, that has always been a bad idea. Considering that his entire business model has involved monetizing people's data for decades, it's not surprising that he is looking for another way to do it.

Also, there is going to be a signal to noise ratio. A lot of stories are probably more noise. Maybe, the process of cutting stories out is just as important as the process of including them.

I've never been a fan of incendiary clickbait style sites (even a decade ago, I didn't like these), and these aren't sites that I go out of my way to visit.