Copyright sure was useful for all the artists who had their creations scraped from the “open web,” huh (I am in this bucket). It would literally bankrupt me to enforce it.

Copyright only serves the wealthy, and rarely if ever protects I normal individuals who are well enough off to afford legal remedy. This is due to the cost to enforce, which is beyond most creators and a drop in the bucket for the wealthy. It is intended to and has been updated consistently to do just that.

We need some kind of protection, but historically copyright ain’t it.

Omg stop being so reactionary. It’s obviously a case of pregnant shaming, unless you just casually call pregnant people fat.

A little offended you just assumed it was fat hate and not pregnancy hate

Yep, I agree. The innocent tiny humanoids that benevolently ride larger humanoid mechs should be compared to this asshole.

This. I use LLM for work, primarily to help create extremely complex nested functions.

I don’t count on LLM’s to create anything new for me, or to provide any data points. I provide the logic, and explain exactly what I want in the end.

I take a process which normally takes 45 minutes daily, test it once, and now I have reclaimed 43 extra minutes of my time each day.

It’s easy and safe to test before I apply it to real data.

It’s missed the mark a few times as I learned how to properly work with it, but now I’m consistently getting good results.

Other use cases are up for debate, but I agree when used properly hallucinations are not much of a problem. When I see people complain about them, that tells me they’re using the tool to generate data, which of course is stupid.

Keep it up. Work is slow and watching you flounder is helping

Then you should write and call those lawmakers. You are a part of the body that elects them. Or run for office and fight the good fight yourself.

I do hope we do get some domestic reform, but I’m able to separate this small foreign policy win from the huge need for comprehensive domestic policy.

Lmao I must have struck a nerve to get 7 replies from you.

You keep returning to your red herring because you don’t actually have a decent argument.

I bet you’re really mad at some internet stranger, maybe you should take a break

I’m stating than less than 2% of American TikTok users will use VPN to bypass TikTok leaving the market.

You’re crazy if you think VPN usage is high among the general public on a regular basis. And that number’s intersection with using a VPN to specifically work around this will be extremely low.

I absolutely stand by holding TikTok responsible, and any other company responsible. This, coupled with the FTC poised to bring back Net Nuetrality, is a great step in the right direction. I look forward to this energy setting up more data protection, foreign and domestic.

Lmao “BFFS.” You love making me into whatever you want to rail against.

Congress didn’t ban an app. They requested data on where their information flows, and the “stupid dancing app” opted to leave the market instead of comply.

You don’t even know what the fuck you’re going on about haha

Ah, a red herring.

According to you, there should be only one law that protects people and protects them fully. If the law is specific to a sector, it’s bad because saving people’s data doesn’t give them healthcare. And if it doesn’t protect people in other sectors (foreign vs domestic) then it can’t possibly be a good move.

It’s an all-or-nothing mentality that is extremely idealistic to the point of ignoring incremental progress, and will make it so that no law is ever good or enough.

Stopping the bleeding of data harvesting to China is good. If you want other change alongside it, hold your elected officials to it.

There’s really no point in continuing a discussion with such an idealistic purist, as no law can be good enough.

The pedantry emanating from you is palpable.

You can just admit that protecting the public comes in many forms and one law won’t fix unrelated areas.

But you won’t, because you have a hate boner for our shitty oligarchy. You can also pretend like TikTok didn’t have a chance to prove they don’t misuse our data, but chose to exit the market rather than reveal where our data goes. The “cut” you bemoan, if it’s even true, would only occur due to TikTok’s choice.

But sure, they only passed a law after giving the company a chance to comply so they could get a pay cut. Genius.

What does the issue we are talking about (TikTok’s data harvesting) have to do with healthcare? Unless that’s where you get your magic crystal healing tips lmao

We could also feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick etc. we could ask why any law regarding healthcare, housing, nutrition doesn’t fix the issue, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

The FTC is putting in work this administration, and are poised to bring back Net Neutrality (obligatory Fuck Ajit Pai). This is a huge step towards protecting all Americans, so I think you’re confusing this issue (adversarial governments harvesting our data) with the larger issue of domestic policy (which will be much harder to tackle).

I bet less than 2% of users use VPNs. They won’t have much content, if any, from domestic creators. They’ll only be interacting with the other 2% of American users along with foriegn content.

I don’t think people with enough brain cells to use VPN will are China’s target demographic, and I don’t think VPN users will constitute a fraction of activity you are suggesting they will.

I really like how you point out the danger of the Cambridge Analytica incident, but then bemoan trying to keep data harvesting away from a foreign adversary.

Domestic data policy drastically needs an overhaul, but we have to start somewhere. Also, Cambridge Analytica had a fucking shitstain president/administration running interference because they benefited directly from it. Glad we have accountability this time around.

You can literally watch the congressional hearings yourself.

Here’s one video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhKX8zF2FQw

I watched it live, so I don’t know how complete or edited this recording of the hearing is. Talk to you in 5.5 hours after you watch the thing you requested.

Taking longer than it should.

Any other completely unrelated questions you’d like to ask?

It’s almost like an action can protect people and enrich elites at the same time. Explain how the American public isn’t better of keeping their personal data away from the CCP. Interested to see how you think this doesn’t protect the public at all from an adversarial foreign government.

I disagree. I listened when it was presented to Congress. I read a good amount of the data justifying the required transfer. If you don’t think this bill protects the public, there really is no reasoning with you.

Someone will get a cut specifically because TikTok chooses not to prove where their data flows. They had a choice, and chose to exit the market.

But sure, you can frame it like we forced them to leave the market, which isn’t the case. They could have verified their data flow and remained if they were not abusing it.

No doubt, but accountability starts somewhere, so why have a problem with this? Why not celebrate and then demand equitable action domestically?

“I’m not defending TikTok. I’m just bemoaning action being taken against them because bad things happen with other companies!” Not a great look.