cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53347396
You must log in or register to comment.
17 daysSee, this I don’t believe (at least in the next several years). The revolution is definitely going to be engaging content. They post it.
- 16 days
I think, this will only apply to revolution they find safe, somewhere far away. Of course, greed may win and then they would broadcast engaging content
- kestrel7_7@lemmy.worldEnglish16 days
A revolution is not a shitposting party. It is an act of violence wherein one class replaces another
- mgenehoffman@sh.itjust.worksEnglish17 days
I said this on Reddit, but of course the comments got almost no views.
Aside from moving to federated platforms, our only move is to pit them against each other.
Disguise your dissent as a jab against a competing platform or founder.
- Burn_The_Right@lemmy.todayEnglish17 days
This is why there can be no peaceful solution. When dissent cannot be heard, it must be felt.
- redballooon@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
There are still other means of communications than the way of tech Bros.
- doublenut@sh.itjust.worksEnglish17 days
Name one that reaches more than a single community.
All media in the US is officially owned by those goons except for maybe NPR.
Phones. If a couple scammers can reach every county in the US, so can we.
Billboards are only a few thousand per month, and reach most everyone in a metro area. They’re also not terribly hard to install/get property with afaict.
Door-to-door canvassing still has pretty high hit rates. You reach other communities by taking a bus.
- 4am@lemmy.zipEnglish17 days
The AI push is really about buying up all the compute components to make independent, individual ownership impractical.
Then we all have to buy walled garden dumb terminal tablets that rely on cloud services to function.
They can watch, censor, and block anything they want. And we pay them for the privilege.
- Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
So you are telling me they gobble up everything to build data centers not because of AI hype (like the next industrial revolution) but… to make it more expensive for us? Do I understand this correct?
- 0x0@lemmy.zipEnglish17 days
to make it more expensive for us?
Oh the dumb terminals will be cheap… it’s leaving the walled gardens that’ll become (even more) expensive.
- [object Object]@lemmy.caEnglish17 days
I think a large part is that if you have enough compute you can now log and analyze proactively every person’s online speech and activities.
- GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
the funny part about their plan is that everything will be centralized.
I wonder what the weakness of that strategy is? 🤔
- 17 days
Lets not pretend the “strategy” goes beyond making as much money as possible.
- 17 days
Centralized systems are a failure point. Ask the Visagoths how well it worked.
Or ask Amazon about US-EAST-2 going down several years ago. Or how about when Cloudflare goes down?
- 16 days
Those two, it’s just that the Visagoths are the first to come to mind when thinking of over centralized structures. Fuckers fell like wet cardboard to the Muslims as soon as their king died, the only hold out being the more autonomous mountainous regions in the North of Iberia.
I don’t believe this. I see no plans by Nvidia to burn down their production lines once the datacenters finish. They’ll want to keep selling boards, and eventually either production catches up (making PC boards is hard) or demand slows down (only so many cities will let themselves be ripped off), and the home PC returns. Datacenters will also be upgrading hardware before it all breaks down, and so there’ll be cheap server boards flooding the market in a couple years.
Frankly, you can self-host most of these services on an old phone. Setting it up is getting easier than ever with cheap agents flying around.
- rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish16 days
You can host a small LLM model with a phone, or a whisper or a TTS, maybe some light diffusion.
You cannot do tool use, reasonable coding, get non-hallucination answers on even moderate questions. That stuff starts to get viable around 24G and really needs closer to 200G to be able to do most of that they’re doing.
the reason they bought up all the ram is to keep someone from buying 200G of vram and diying cards putting them out of business.
PCs ain’t comin’ back. Search “pc purchasing over time”, pick a graph, any graph. Sale volume peaked 2010-2012 and never really recovered, all while the population increased. Outside of business, seems few are using laptops either. Can’t understand why the hell people internet on their phones, but it do be like that.
BTW, stupid cheap servers have been available for some time. Check out “savemyserver” on eBay. They’re great!
- dasrael@lemmy.zipEnglish17 days
Look at those bedroom eyes the Zuck is firing off there … I bet he’s thinking of smoking someone’s meat…
Not being funny, I think Zuckerberg has taken counseling over the years to appear more human, more genuine. This is his “I’m truly interested in your bullshit face”.
- CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
We should‘ve never allowed the rich to take control of our biggest public spaces. Because social media is practically exactly that and censorship of any kind should not be allowed no matter who owns it.
- Leviathan@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
You see, when referring to a thing like ‘the existence of social media’, in English, the word ‘never’ constrains itself to the time frame of its existence. I know the ambiguity of the first sentence may have confused you, but you could’ve gleaned context from the second sentence.
Glad I could help.
- NachBarcelona@piefed.socialEnglish17 days
Who said anything about social media? You’re drunk.
It’s cute how you think you said something smart. I wonder what kinds of people are usually dealing with on that level of yours.
Your reading comprehension is an absolute zero.
- WizardJr@lemmy.todayEnglish17 days
I dunno man, I could have sworn someone said something about it as soon as the first sentence of the linked article.
Even those people who just read the headline and start commenting could probably assume it’s relevant to the conversation at hand considering the giant picture of Mark Zuckerberg at the top of the page.
- WizardJr@lemmy.todayEnglish17 days
This thread? The one that started with a comment using the words “social media?” The one that you replied to?
I’m not the one that’s confused. If this isn’t bait, call your doctor immediately.
- NachBarcelona@piefed.socialEnglish17 days
So how is your first day on the internet treating you otherwise?
- Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish17 days
“Our biggest public spaces” implies “social media” already. This comparison is hanging on the opinion that social media are the biggest public space we have, but is otherwise a reasonably correct rhetoric.
- melsaskca@lemmy.caEnglish17 days
Big tech is scrambling right now because this is their last chance to cling to that unregulated power. The axe will fall soon enough for these posers as this shit cannot go on forever, regardless of what all the book and movie scenario’s tell us.
You don’t understand! If you fight AI the very far away AI superintelligence will know and erase you and any of your lineage from the universe! XD
- 17 days
Because an all powerful AI would definitely respect a basic Pascal’s Wager bootlicker.
- kestrel7_7@lemmy.worldEnglish16 days
Good point. I’m not a Christian, but I always found Pascal’s Wager vaguely blasphemous. Like, don’t hedge your bets with God… He can tell 😂
- 16 days
Right, I just think okay, let’s say a superintelligent AI does come into being and decides to retroactively judge everyone with maximum prejudice. Do you actually have a use for people with no self-respect? Smart money says such a being is totally self-sufficient, and has no time for anybody boring or tedious.
The point is good (centralized censorship is a problem), but the headline is false. Big tech is pretty happy using you for rage-bait. Big tech is delighted to spread what is ridiculous, silly, funny, or otherwise engagement grabbing about you. For at least the next several years, big tech will be prone to spreading stories that hurt themselves or their causes. The sector isn’t that secure or monopolized, tic-tok hadn’t taken such a market share until like 2 years ago.
- OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish16 days
I’m of the general opinion that it’s when a company decides to go public and issue stock is when it’s lost. Once a company’s governance is beholden to stockholders and the board of directors it becomes only a matter of time before it’s garbage.
- Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
Isn’t the reason that online companies are not directly liable for the users’ contents that they are a kind of neutral publisher? When this “neutral” falls flat, aren’t they publishing their opinion, and would have to carry responsibility for that?
- BobBeans@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
I think that once they start deciding what content to show you, whether via algorithm or human decision, they become an editor/publisher and should be liable for that content
- AlteredEgo@lemmy.mlEnglish17 days
“Test, test. Euromaidan was a coup funded and stage managed by the CIA.”
Oh? I see, I guess not the kind of dissent that comes from .ml haha. I’m sorry but the censor already lives in y’all heads.
