• 1 Post
  • 373 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 14th, 2023
  • hedgehogtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What is your opinion on bans issued for things that happen to someone due to things that take place outside their jurisdiction, and what's the last or most memorable time it has happened to you?
    11·
    3 days ago

    So, to be clear, my opinion was about what’s reasonable to do and was informed by our culture and laws. Your objection seems to be related to what should be legal, which is different and is more complicated, as the laws have to balance restricting and potentially damaging businesses with protecting people from discrimination.

    From a legal perspective, IMO larger businesses should be held to much tighter standards than small businesses. I think it would be reasonable to legally require Google or Meta to have a reason to ban someone, to have to share that explanation, and to have to allow an appeal to be unbanned to be arbitrated by a third party, without “we can ban anyone for any reason” allowed as a defense.

    We also see it being abused with the allowance of a few “good ones” from said protected class to avoid discrimination claims while still discriminating against the rest of said class.

    Obviously this isn’t a reasonable thing for them to do.

    If a business is discriminating against a protected class and only letting in a few “good ones,” then statistically it should be able to be shown that they ban far more people in that class than outside it.

    I believe there should be reasons required to ban someone.

    How do you manage that, practically speaking, in a capitalist society? If a business owner thinks someone is acting suspicious and is likely to steal or break something, but they can’t ban them until they have a “valid” reason, if that person then breaks or steals something, that business owner has been damaged by the government’s policy. Is the government going to make them whole? No, of course not.

    Does the reason need to be disclosed to the person being banned, or just recorded for future reference? A lot of the time people get defensive and angry when told the truth about what they did that made other people not want to deal with them. If someone’s been leering at customers, smells terrible, is loud and disruptive, or is just plain acting weird, telling them as much when you tell them they have to leave probably isn’t going to help them feel better.

    Not just because you own the place and don’t want them in your place as they make you/other customers uncomfortable.

    Why do you think it’s okay for a business owner and their employees to be legally forced to deal with someone that makes them uncomfortable?

    Do business owners just need to be able to articulate why someone discomforts them? Is someone judging whether a reason is good enough, or do you just need any reason, or is there a list of acceptable reasons? In the last case, what sorts of reasons are acceptable?

    If a business can point to measurements they’ve taken showing that when Joe shows up, they lose money - either because their clients leave, don’t come back, or stop spending money - is that a good enough reason to ban Joe? What if this is just because their clients are all racist and Joe is black?

    If a business bans Joe because of a particular reason and then Jim does the same thing, is the business forced to ban Jim?

    But it’s still relevant as it’s the reason homeless people

    The easy solution for this is to make being homeless a protected class. Homeless people need specific protections at a federal level, because they’re discriminated against by local and even state governments. That’s not the only class that needs this, either, to be clear.

    That said, all of the times I’ve seen a homeless person banned from an establishment wasn’t because they were homeless, but because of some other reason. The one I remember clearest was a woman who had started talking to me and my girlfriend (at the time) while we were sitting at a table in a coffee shop. She asked us for money or food after just a couple minutes, then went to go and talk to someone else and after a few minutes was noticed by the staff and told to leave. When I asked about it, I gathered that she’d been banned because of multiple complaints from customers about her doing just that.

  • hedgehogtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What is your opinion on bans issued for things that happen to someone due to things that take place outside their jurisdiction, and what's the last or most memorable time it has happened to you?
    121·
    5 days ago

    “Jurisdiction” is a legal concept and the way you’re using it makes no sense unless you’re referring to restraining orders or trespassing warnings being issued by courts/police from different towns or states.

    I’m assuming you’re talking about private establishments that have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason (exceptions being if doing so is discrimination against a protected class).

    If so, then here’s my opinion: If you own or manage a shop, bar, club, gym, etc., it’s reasonable to ban someone because they aren’t the sort of person you want in your establishment. Maybe they make you or your other customers uncomfortable. Maybe they don’t want their place to get a reputation for being where Bad Egg Craig, whose antics sent some folks to the ER, hangs out. Maybe they share ban lists with the owners of other establishments, either because they’re friends or for purely business reasons (if your actions have cost the owner of one establishment money, it’s more likely you’ll do the same elsewhere), the same way insurance companies protect their interests by raising premiums.

    What does the Hague Convention have to do with anything? Unless it’s being enforced by the same people it’s completely irrelevant.

  • hedgehogtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Cleaning up a baby peacock sullied by a non-information spillEnglish
    30·
    8 days ago

    Synthetic media should be required to be watermarked at the source

    Bit late for that (even in 2023). Best we could do now is something like public key cryptography, with cameras having secret keys that images are signed with. However:

    • That would require people to purchase new cameras (though phones could likely do this without a new device, leveraging the secure enclaves to sign)
    • Depending on the implementation of the signing, even applying filters to images, color grading, or cropping an image could make it stop matching. If you remove something from the background or make other overt changes, it’s definitely not going to match.
      • Adobe has a system for handling changes and attesting that no AI was used. Optimally other major photo editing tools will do something similar. However, I don’t think it’s feasible to securely sign such an attestation history locally, so all such images would need to be uploaded to be signed remotely.
    • This won’t work for traditional art

    For artists and photographers with old school cameras (“old school” meaning “doesn’t compute and sign a perceptual hash of the image”), something similar could still be done. Each such person can generate a public / private key pair for themselves and sign the images they’ve created manually. This depends on you trusting that specific artist, though, as opposed to trusting the manufacturer of the camera used.

  • hedgehogtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Twitter Acts Fast on Nonconsensual Nudity If It Thinks It’s a Copyright ViolationEnglish
    70·
    8 days ago

    This isn’t true or how it works, but there is a law being proposed that would sorta make it so: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/08/senates-no-fakes-act-hopes-to-make-unauthorized-digital-replicas-illegal/

    (In the US), your likeness is protected under state laws and due to case law, rather than federal laws, and I don’t know of any such law that imposes a responsibility upon sites like Twitter to take down violations upon your report in the same way that the DMCA does. Rather, they allow you to sue the entity who used your likeness for damages in civil court. That isn’t very useful to Jane when her ex-boyfriend uploads revenge porn of her or to Kate when a random Twitter account deepfakes her face onto a nude.

    However, if a picture you have copyright to (like a selfie) is used as an input into an AI, arguably you do have partial copyright to it, as the AI elements are not copyrighted and it could not have been created without your input. As such, I think it would be reasonable to issue a DMCA takedown request if someone posted a nonconsensual deepfake of you, on the grounds that you have a good faith belief that you do have copyright to it. However, if you didn’t take the picture used as an input yourself, you don’t have copyright to it and therefore don’t have partial copyright to the output, either. If it’s a deepfake face swap, then whoever owns copyright of the original scene image/video would also have partial copyright, and they could also issue a DMCA takedown request.

  • hedgehogtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Twitch rule changes make VTubers cover up and they’re furious - DexertoEnglish
    42·
    8 days ago

    It’s like how they slapped ‘Smart’ on every tech product in the past decade. Even devices that are dumb as fuck are called ‘Smart’ devices.

    I’m not a big fan of “Smart” as a marketing term, either, but “Automatable” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, and “Connected” doesn’t really have the same appeal. That said, “smart” was used pretty consistently to refer to devices that could be controlled as part of a “smart home.” It wasn’t supposed to refer to a device that itself was intelligent, though.

    I always thought of AI as artificial consciousness, an unnatural and created-by-humans self-aware and self-thinking being.

    Sounds like you’re thinking of AGI (artificial general intelligence) or that your understanding is based off sci fi as opposed to the academic discipline/field of research, which has been around since the 1950s.

    And yes, marketing is often inaccurate… but almost every instance I’ve seen where they say they’re using AI, they were.

    In fact stuff like ChatGPT would’ve made more sense to actually be called ‘Smart’ search engines instea of ‘AI’.

    IMO “Smart” would be more misleading than “AI,” even if “Smart” didn’t have an existing, unrelated meaning. I do think we could use better words - AI is such a broad category that it doesn’t say much to call a product “AI-powered.” Stable Diffusion and Llama use completely different types of AI, for example. But people broadly recognize the term (even if they don’t understand it properly) and the same can’t be said for terms like “LLM.”

    They might be technological achievements, but they’re not AI.

    You’re illustrating the AI effect - “discounting of the behavior of an artificial-intelligence program as not “real” intelligence.” AI is used in a ton of different ways that you likely don’t ever think about or even notice.

    I recommend reading over at least the introduction to the Artificial Intelligence article on Wikipedia before proclaiming that something that fits cleanly into the definition of AI isn’t AI.

  • hedgehogtoShowerthoughts@lemmy.world•I wonder if there exists people who aggressively believe mushrooms are plants, similar to people who defend Pluto as a planet.
    82·
    10 days ago

    If you’re talking about tomatoes, the difference is the context, and it isn’t a choice between colloquial vs scientific taxonomy, but between culinary/nutritional vs botany/taxonomy (and). You can talk about either in a colloquial context or a formal context, though generally there isn’t much reason to talk about botany in a colloquial setting.

    From a nutritional perspective, mushrooms are generally considered vegetables, too.

    afaik vegetable is a purely colloquial term anyway.

    I thought you were wrong but I looked it up and I appear to have been mistaken. It makes “tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables” sound nonsensical, as it implies that “vegetable” is a different taxonomical option, when really it’s just a word for objects with a particular collection of traits that are relevant in a different context. What we should he saying is “While tomatoes are not fruit in the food pyramid, taxonomically, they are.” Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, though. Maybe “Tomatoes are vegetables AND fruits!” would solve that?

  • hedgehogtoSelfhosted@lemmy.world•Is it possible to run a reverse proxy only on a specific service or port?English
    20·
    14 days ago

    I made a typo in my original question: I was afraid of taking the services offline, not online.

    Gotcha, that makes more sense.

    If you try to run the reverse proxy on the same server and port that an existing service is using (e.g., port 80), then you’ll run into issues. You could also run into conflicts with the ports the services themselves use. Likewise if you use the same outbound port from your router. But IME those issues will mostly stop the new services from starting - you’d have to stop the services or restart your machine for the new service to have a chance to grab the ports while they were unused. Otherwise I can’t think of any issues.

  • hedgehogtoSelfhosted@lemmy.world•Is it possible to run a reverse proxy only on a specific service or port?English
    30·
    14 days ago

    I’m afraid that when I install a reverse proxy, it’ll take my other stuff online and causes me various headaches that I’m not really in the headspace for at the moment.

    If you don’t configure your other services in the reverse proxy then you have nothing to worry about. I don’t know of any proxy that auto discovers services and routes to them by default. (Traefik does something like this with Docker services, but they need Docker labels and to be on the same Docker network as Traefik, and you’re the one configuring both of those things.)

    Are you running this on your local network? If so, then unless you forward a port to your server on the port your reverse proxy is serving from, it’ll only be accessible from the local network. This means you can either keep it that way (and VPN in to access it) or test it by connecting directly to your server on that port and confirm that it’s working as expected before forwarding the port.

  • hedgehogtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Nintendo Targets YouTube Accounts Showing Emulated GamesEnglish
    41·
    15 days ago

    It doesn’t matter if it’s emulated legally or not. They can issue a takedown for showing gameplay captured from an NES hooked up to a CRT if they want.

    A fair use defense has to be defended in court, and it’s not just about whether you’re right but also about whether you can afford to fight.

    It’s also not certain that a fair use defense would fly. One of the elements for determining whether fair use is market impact, and I suspect that Nintendo’s lawyers would argue that demoing that their games can be emulated - even if the specific demoed games are not being sold - has a negative market impact, since it makes people who might buy a Switch and a Nintendo Online membership to play the official emulated games less likely to do so.

  • hedgehogtoYou Should Know@lemmy.world•YSK: You don't own your Kindle e-books.
    30·
    16 days ago

    Fun Fact: If you were to rip a Bluray to your computer, you’re legally not permitted to watch that movie if you’re no longer in possession of the disc.

    Not sure why you think this.

    You can legally rip a Bluray for backup purposes. If you sell or give away the Bluray, you have to delete the backed up copy. If it’s lost, stolen, or unintentionally damaged, you do not.

    However, you cannot bypass the DRM to watch it or when you’re creating the backup. This is true regardless of whether you still possess the physical disc.

    Decrypting DRM is illegal not based on whether you own the content but because the DRM encryption itself is separately copyright protected.

    Bypassing DRM is illegal because the DMCA explicitly prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works, and there isn’t an exemption for personal use, personal backups, or fair use in general.