Posts with LGBTQ+ hashtags including #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexial, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, #lesbianpride, and dozens of others were hidden for any users who had their sensitive content filter turned on. Teenagers have the sensitive content filter turned on by default.
Kids wont even know what they will lose with his representation going missing on Instagram. So depressing. Wish that lizard freak the worst.
Wait, Pro-LGBT speech IS NOT allowed!?!?! Holy fucking shit, this isn’t a cesspool, it’s an execution by firing squad.
I remember there were plenty of little removed saying that censorship won’t be turned the other way and that it allows to remove bad people from the Internet. That bad people should be censored, and Reddit\Twitter\Facebook when used for politics will not be abused by bot armies, and that censorship will not be repurposed very easily.
I was being accused of being a right-wing troll, a luddite, a removed, an incel and what not for saying that they were wrong on every point.
Yes, even bad people should not be censored. When they misbehave, they should be barred from the place they harmed, ideally not forever, but for a week or so maximum.
I’ve learned this not just in morals, but in practice, when repeatedly banned on one forum by an admin of directly opposite political views … for 24 hours max each time after multiple warnings, and only once a week or a month (can’t remember) much later when I joked about exploding Muslims. Despite that, I was (I hope) a good enough member of that forum for like 10 years after, till now. Apes waving banhammers today have something to learn from that.
But that’s not the point, the point is that even if you consider centralized censorship good, that’s how it works.
So getting back to little removed loving censorship - where are they now and do they have anything to say?
I guess advertisers have no issues with Meta’s changes. Interesting. A few years ago, they’d be falling over themselves to signal that “hate has no place here”. But it is no longer profitable to be LGBTQ+ so let the hateful bell ring.
Eh. The advertisers will be back to supporting LGBTQ whenever that month of year comes back
This year? Doubt.
LGBTQ+Everyone, but LGBTQ+ people especially need to get the the fuck off of Meta services now, they’ve showed what side they’re on.Straight+cis people too. I’m downloading an export of my Facebook info as we speak in preparation for closing it down.
I just deleted my old, disused Instagram account I hadn’t touched in a long long time. Nothing even worth saving since I never uploaded anything to it. It was the only Meta account I still had around.
That sounds like encouraging queer folk to flee public spaces which sounds like a favourable outcome to the conservatives. Is giving ground the best idea really?
I don’t know how to stress this any more clearly: A privately owned social media site isn’t actually a public space. It’s literally the definition of a private space. It’s more akin to a mall than a library. That’s the whole issue, how does it help to be on a site where all the admins have to do is shut down your speech and ban you anyway? Where everything you do, every move you make is tracked and monetized and studied to be used against you? It’s by definition a surveillance state where you have no rights.
You realize they make money from ads and if the majority of people stop using their services they stop making enough money to function as a business? They may already have your data but you don’t need to be giving them more.
The bigger issue is that corporations have commodified public spaces. You can take back public spaces by choosing to not use their services and convincing others not to. Facebook is already dying which is why they rolled out bullshit AI profiles and the public response to that went really badly. But they live and die by engagement so if they already are needing to turn to faking engagement to keep people on and money rolling in, then isn’t a boycott literally the way to cut them off at the knees and stop them being a public space?
Forgive me if I didn’t make clear that everyone needs to do it, not just LGBTQ+, my point is there are very few reasons to keep using these services for any person with a conscience.
Like you’ve mentioned, real public spaces have been killed so by quitting FB and other corpo social media you effectively self-ostracise as there are little alternatives. Yeah, you’re playing their game but when you’re losing you need humility rather than some moral high ground. If you want to affect the change you need to talk to people.
There is no talking. There is no convincing them to change. Let them rot where they sit. Let them die off in their old folks homes, hating the kids and the queer. It’s not our job to sit on Facebook and leading them in a round of kumbaya. Since you can’t protest a private social media network effectively on that network, you just walk the fuck away.
But don’t delete your account, before you simply never login again, upload as much high def white static video as you can.
Screw Facebook and their advertisers. They don’t need our eyes while we tried to tell some racist bigots that they’re racist bigots.
It’s so weird to me that people still use Facebook. Nobody under 40 uses Facebook. The women use insta sure but literally what are you going on Facebook for. It’s only boomer hate groups on there now
Real life exists dude. Facebook isn’t the only place to talk to people.
Agreed but we invented other forms of communication for a reason. [edit] All I’m saying is - don’t roll over and let them win by default. You don’t have to use corpo social media in good faith. Break rules and fight back.
Okay, let’s be clear about this: staying on Facebook isn’t “humility.” It’s selfishly selling out to simp for the fucking enemy.
That’s the moral high ground speaking. I was like that too but at some point it was too hard to not notice that it wasn’t very effective. I’m pretty sure grannies on my local FB arthritis support group have bigger problems than navigating ethics of social media and politics.
I’m kinda shocked people still actively use Facebook.
Only ~3,000,000,000 people/month.
Never used Facebook, never fucking will.
I haven’t in over a decade. I think I’m up to eight different word filters trying to stop news stories about this from showing up on my feed. If they didn’t have such a stupid name I could just block the term meta.
Plot twist: that was their plan all along.
What about WhatsApp?
What about Instagram?
Also does your Lemmy instance federate with Threads?
WhatsApp is encrypted and much less open to manipulation. Will be switching to matrix once 2.0 is stable and recommendable.
Friendly reminder: Deleting your account won’t accomplish what you think it will.
Facebook will still keep all data that is associated with other users as per their own disclaimer. They also still keep logs that are "disassociated with personal identifiers. "
So all training can still occur. And understand what while Jane Smith may have deleted her account, they still have all the data it takes to indicate that User 12345 was tagged in photos with John Smith at the Burger King on 404 Fake St. And, because of that, the data that User 12345 had previously provided is ALSO John Smith’s data. And Fred Wilkerson since he was at that Burger King once. And so forth.
And ALL that data is still there for training.
So do what you gotta do to make it less appealing to other users. But understand your data is already out there and is never going away. Same with reddit and all other social media (which includes Lemmy).
Yeah but you know what? That’s still better than actively engaging with their “services”.
Eventually, it’ll just be bots interacting with themselves, given enough time.
Eventually, it’ll just be bots interacting with themselves, given enough time.
It seems like that’s a good chunk of it already
Yes. Like I said. Do what you gotta do to make it less appealing to other users.
But if, for example, you are an LGBTQIA+ person who thinks this will provide any form of protection…
If you’re in the US, sure. If you’re in Europe you can compel them to completely delete everything as per the GDPR.
And I am sure a company that is now openly training their LLMs on copyrighted materials is going to totally comply with all of that…
One of these days people are going to learn “But it is against the law” doesn’t apply to the rich and powerful, law enforcement, or megacorporations.
Training LLMs on copyright material isn’t illegal to begin with, just like how learning from a pirated book isn’t or having drugs in your system isn’t, only being in possession of these things is illegal.
GDPR violations are on the other hand - illegal. You’re right in principle, don’t get me wrong and I appreciate your healthy cynicism but in this particular case being slapped with a GDPR fine is actually not worth keeping the data of one user.
Edit: Downvoted for being right as usual. Bruh Lemmy is becoming more and more like Reddit every day.
Training LLMs on copyright material isn’t illegal to begin with
Reproducing identifiable chunks of copyrighted content in the LLM’s output is copyright infringement, though, and that’s what training on copyrighted material leads to. Of course, that’s the other end of the process and it’s a tort, not a crime, so yeah, you make a good point that the company’s legal calculus could be different.
Thank you, I’m glad someone is sane ITT.
To further refine the point, do you know of any lawsuits that were ruled successfully on the basis that as you say - the company that made the LLM is responsible because someone could prompt it to reproduce identifiable chunks of copyright material? Which specific bills make it so?
Wouldn’t it be like suing Seagate because I use their hard drives to pirate corpo media? I thought Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. would serve as the basis there and just like Betamax it’d be distribution of copyright material by an end user that would be problematic, rather than the potential of a product to be used for copyright infringement.
I’m glad someone is sane ITT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY9z2b85qcE
To be clear, I think it ought to be the case that at least “copyleft” GPL code can’t be used to train an LLM without requiring that all output of the LLM become GPL (which, if said GPL training data were mixed with proprietary training data, would likely make the model legally unusable in total). AFAIK it’s way too soon for there to be a precedent-setting court ruling about it, though.
In particular…
I thought Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. would serve as the basis there
…I don’t see how this has any relevancy at all, since the whole purpose of an LLM is to make new – arguably derivative – works on an industrial scale, not just single copies for personal use.
No, it means all speach is welcome. Freedom of speach is a fundamental right and anyone advocating for censorship should take a long look into the mirror before calling other people fascist.
Free speech absolutists are so annoying. Your tolerance of the intolerant is so stupid. Yeah, protecting marginalized communities is fascism.
Go outside and check the political landscape. Now figure out how this change of policy relates to that atmosphere.
Now shut the fuck up about things you know not of. Protecting LGBTQ+ people is fascism? The fuck out of here with that.
Clearly you didn’t read the article. The first paragraph is about Meta censoring LGBTQ+ content
On Monday, Taylor Lorenz posted a telling story about how Meta has been suppressing access to LGBTQ content across its platforms, labeling it as “sensitive content” or “sexually explicit.”
Posts with LGBTQ+ hashtags including #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexial, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, #lesbianpride, and dozens of others were hidden for any users who had their sensitive content filter turned on. Teenagers have the sensitive content filter turned on by default.
When teen users attempted to search LGBTQ terms they were shown a blank page and a prompt from Meta to review the platform’s “sensitive content” restrictions, which discuss why the app hides “sexually explicit” content.
People who comment on articles without reading the article itself should take a long look into the mirror before implying other people are advocating censorship.
So preventing underage people from seeing NSFW content is oppression?
Freedom of speech isn’t a fundamental right. If you doubt this try publicly and clearly threatening people with the intent to harm. You will be prosecuted for that action.
You should avoid using words you almost cettainly do not understand which in this case is “fascist”.
