Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don’t give in to criminals or bullies

Kick a puppy
Get attacked for kicking a puppy
“These attacks make me MORE likely to keep kicking puppies, as I don’t give in to intimidation from criminals and bullies that want healthy puppies for their nefarious ends.”

  • Sebeck0401@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is it just me or are Twitter, Reddit, and now Google, scrambling to lock their doors to any entities trying to scrape the web for new AI datasets?

    All these hugely unpopular decisions, taken on short notice, that may be fatal to their platforms, seem to be more like knee jerk reactions to protect their treasure hoards of possible AI input data.

    Opinions?

    • ruffsl@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      scrambling to lock their doors

      From a consumer perspective, it seems like all the FANG conglomerates are trying to shut the stable door after the AI horse has bolted, but perhaps from an industry perspective, their just trying to pull up the ladder behind themselves to curb competition, or stall any emerging upstarts, just like most FANGs where themselves only decades ago.

      • CallumWells
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do know that FAANG is an acronym for Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google, not a type of company. Saying “…like most FANGs [sic] where themselves only decades ago” makes no sense as far as I can read it.

        • ruffsl@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          My phone keyboard spelling aside, when the acronym was first coined, correct, but it seems to have sence devolved into more of a colloquialism for large scale tech related corporations, outliving the precise corporate restructuring that once comprised the old acronym. At least that’s what I’ve experienced in my workplaces, as well as the comments here:

          Was there a equivalent house hold colloquialism for IBM, HP, Xerox, Bell System, etc. back in the day?

          • CallumWells
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I just prefer that people actually are precise in their language to make things as clear as possible. Saying “FAANG-like companies” is precise and correct, saying “FAANGs” is nonsensical. I would always use FAANG as that acronym, if you just want to mean “Big Tech companies” then just say that instead. It’s a lot more clear to a lot more people who don’t share your tribal-speak of your workplace. People federated here are from a lot more places and making it easier for everyone to know what you’re actually meaning should be a good thing.

            • ruffsl@programming.devOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Language is inherently messy, localized, and ephemeral, so it could be unwise to expect that kind of conformity on the global internet. It can be jarring, for example tech folk here in the EU seem to use corporate slang a lot differently than when I was working near SFO or DFW, we’re I’d suspect the greater non-homogeneity of native speakers, as compared to the US, had a lot to do with it.

              That aside, I think we merely disagree on the colloquial use of FAANG in 2023, as (from my anecdotal perspective) it seems to have semantically shifted into a categorical noun in common vernacular, rather than a once precise acronym from a decade ago, given most of the conglomerates behind the initial spelling have either re-branded, fallen in stock valuation, declined in labor desirability, or whatever else that had originally garnered acclaim and publicity. In that respect, pluralization of such a noun seems mundane, if not a little odd looking for typographical formatting.

              Perhaps this could be coined as another stage of acronymization, or “acronym drift”; the process by which an acronym’s original expansion and meaning become less relevant or obscured over time, and the acronym itself is treated and used as a regular word, independent of its original expansion. This can happen when the original meaning of the acronym is no longer relevant, but the acronym continues to be used and recognized based on its familiarity. An example that comes to mind is Google’s original acronym for the QUIC protocol, which is no longer used to mean “Quick UDP Internet Connections”, as was initially proposed.

    • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I my experience the people running large companies are idiots who got their position by brown nosing the right people so it doesn’t really surprise me. Google is pretty well known too for coming up with stupid ideas they scrap in a few years

      • ipkpjersi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hopefully this is just another idea they scrap and they don’t follow through with it.