I said:

I don’t think these people should be locked up or all AI usage banned. But there is definitely a middle ground between absolute prohibition and no restrictions at all.

I have used AI tools as a shooter/editor for years so I don’t need a lecture on this, and I did not say any of the concerns are new. Obviously, the implication is AI greatly enables all of these actions to a degree we’ve never seen before. Just like cell phones didn’t invent distracted driving but made it exponentially worse and necessitated more specific direction/intervention.

Now that is interesting, I’ve never heard this consideration before.

I can’t control that you saw my comments seconds after they were posted but before the 20-30s it takes for me to edit them. There is nothing i changed that drastically for you to imply I was being deceptive.

Have a good one.

And your comment was unnecessarily patronizing IMO. Do you think they needed that today?

If you don’t want people to respond to your takes then don’t post them in public forums. I am critiquing your stance. If it’s overly aggressive than I apologize for the tone.

I understand AI evangelists - which you may or may not be idk - look down on us Luddites who have the gall to ask questions, but you seriously can’t see any potential issue with this technology without some sort of restrictions in place?

You can’t see why people are a little hesitant in an era where massive international corporations are endlessly scraping anything and everything on the Internet to dump into LLM’s et al to use against us to make an extra dollar?

You can’t see why people are worried about governments and otherwise bad actors having access to this technology at scale?

I don’t think these people should be locked up or all AI usage banned. But there is definitely a middle ground between absolute prohibition and no restrictions at all.

Explosive ammo on a pistol is so broken. It’s ridiculous lol

One thing that really soured my taste with Andromeda was the very clunky, but for some odd reason still necessary platforming. It always ground things to a halt for me and reminded me I was playing a video game, which is not a fun feeling. Like recognizing that actors are on a set in the middle of the movie.

They also did not really explore what different species could look like. It just felt like any group I could’ve seen in the Milky Way when they had given themselves an excuse to do literally whatever they wanted. Like halo 4 choosing to have me fight the not-covenant again after 3 rounded the story out and gave them a mechanism for dropping the chief literally anywhere at any time.

I also found most of the squadmates to not be very memorable. It felt like they were going out of their way to make sure they didn’t resemble any of the previous ensembles.

That being said, I think the game did an incredible job of not falling into the usual paradigm of “this is the good option, this is the bad option.” There was a lot more nuance to some of the decisions and it really had me stopping and thinking about how I wanted to proceed.

Still, I never finished the game. Got several dozen hours and it was enjoyable enough, but a lot of dropped balls.

The first sentence of the article establishes my argument

The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.

It’s the means of creating their targeted advertising that is in question. Not the act of advertising itself.

You’re arguing as if it says “The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and having ads.” I encourage you to read the article If you haven’t already

It’s not about the advertising. It’s that you have to pay money to opt out of their aggressive data collection. The advertising is just one thing they do with your data.

The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.

It’s the first sentence of the article.

If your bar is “we only have rights when it comes to things that we can’t live without“ then not only are you creating your own arbitrary standards that is not reflected in our society, but you should be angry if you think that’s how things work.

You have rights dude. Stop trying to win an online argument/defending business in such a bizarre way. There are limits to what they can do whether they re essential services or not.

Besides, you have kind of lost the thread here. It’s not about whether or not they can advertise or charge. It’s about how they collect and use your data in service of advertising (and more). It’s in the first sentence of the article.

The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.

Facebook is free to have an ad tier and a pay tier. It’s about the data they collect and how it’s used.

You are presenting a false dichotomy and ads do not have to infringe on your privacy to the degree Facebook does it. There are gradients.

You’re reducing these arguments so much they’re losing the nuance that warrants the entire discussion. You’re also calling me childish to boot, which doesn’t give me much hope for the rest of this conversation

beyond how it infringes on them

I’m playing Devil’s advocate

Don’t it’s obnoxious and not insightful. It’s how teens test drive arguments without repercussions.

They can’t assign any concessions they wants that’s the entire point. You have rights you can’t sign away even if you want to. I mean dude you’re defending facebook, arguably the single worst company when it comes to respecting user data and privacy. Your assumption should be they are probably wrong until proven otherwise.

I never said anything of the sort and I don’t know why whether or not the service is mandatory matters. That isn’t the bar for us to have consumer/privacy rights.

deleted by creator

What does the monetization scheme have to do with whether or not we have consumer and privacy rights beyond how it infringes on them?

You’re free to not own or use a car. Should we have no rights when it comes to cars as well?

You’re free to not use the internet. Should we have no rights online?

You are conflating a lot of different things here and I’m a little too busy at work today to completely disentangle it, but the short version is that none of us are ignorant about what “free“ means online. That is not the debate here so I’m not sure why you’re going off on that when I don’t even disagree there in the first place. It’s just not relevant.

This assumes everyone who values privacy can afford another $10mo sub in their life or that it should cost money in the first place. In an issue of consent that shouldn’t be the case.