So. . .this is Zuckerberg's life come full circle: a creepy book of women in college ------->>> creepy database for finding women ------>>> creepy glasses to photograph women and put them into facial-recognition megabytes.
Here is the scary thing. Infra red technology. When I was in Vietnam, someone took a picture of Ann Margaret with an Infra red lenses, she was naked, she of couirse heard about and threatened to sue. I don't know how that went.
Infrared (IR) technology can technically see through some thin, dark synthetic fabrics by detecting heat or reflecting IR light rather than visible light. However, effective "see-through" glasses for this purpose do not exist for consumers; these capabilities are limited to specialized, high-cost cameras, often require specific, thin clothing types, and cannot penetrate thick materials.
Considering technological advances I would say that that AI statement is wrong.
I would wager Zuckerberg and other billionairies have their own
Yes, this is your future unless we start regulating tech Nazi products. This is issue #1 for me; I'll vote for no candidate who takes their PAC money or refuses to hold them accountable for all damages they cause.
Repeal Section 230, require all deepfake AI slop to be clearly labeled as such, regulate toxic algorithms, prohibit chatbots from speaking in the 1st person or masquerading as human, prohibit hoovering up all internet and social media data, punish IP and copyright theft.
You give me zero reasons to support your argument. Here are mine:
No other industry in our country is immune from prosecution for harm caused by its products, but Section 230 does just that for social media. There is ample research showing their unregulated algorithms have caused suicides, depression, eating disorders, and are more addictive than heroin. Their algorithms promote "engagement," the source of all their billions in profits, and engagement increases with posts that incite anger, hate, and fear, thus promoting a minority of issues to the top of public awareness while the truth and useful, accurate information gets pushed to the bottom. That's just a start. I don't have time for the rest, but perhaps you could investigate *from reliable sources of fact* what I just pointed out.
But what about the people who AREN'T billionaires and/or perverts? What about the common folk who get censored by people in power because they don't like what they have to say about them? What about marginalized people who get their voices stifled because they're not white, straight, cis, male, and/or Christian. Are you suggesting that removing protection from people who use social media and promoting censorship is a great idea? Because God knows that has done nothing but hurt people who aren't our fascist rulers.
There are better ways to combat deepfakes, privacies being invaded, and algorithms, but removing the one thing that protects users' free speech isn't one of them.
First, check your last sentence. Once again you have not made any case for what those "better ways" are. If you'd like to see some constructive examples, read Gary Marcus's book "Taming Silicon Valley; How We Can Ensure that AI Works for Us."
Second, I'm not advocating censoring free speech, i.e., what's posted on their platforms. I'm advocating for regulating their algorithms, which do exactly what you're concerned about: boost posts that incite anger, fear, or hate—regardless of whether they are true or not—and suppress other, more factual, useful, educational, marginal, or inspirational posts that don't increase the clicks and engagement that fuel tech profits.
I looked up The Fire organization to see who is in charge. They are all from elite universities and appear to me to be biased toward the Silicon Valley set and Epstein class, i.e. Harvey Silvergate, who is Princeton and Harvard educated and who chose as a client the disgraced insurrectionist lawyer John Eastman: "Among his more prominent clients was John Eastman, a fellow attorney controversial for his service to Donald Trump." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Silverglate}
These guys remind me of Musk, who claimed when he bought Twitter that he wanted to promote free speech, then immediately created algorithms that suppressed all speech he didn't like and amplified his own toxic speech along with Nazis, misogynists, and trans haters.
Just forget it, I don’t wanna argue about this anymore because you won't listen.
But if you want to hear a solution, how about getting out there a sue the b*stards instead of expecting the gonvernment to help, because all they're doing is helping themselves and their friends and only pass laws that makes themselves happy.
God I hate Mark Zuckerberg with a passion. And although maybe a little humble brag, but I'm nowhere on FB, meta, Insta, TickTok, or X. I saw this coming, the complete and utter invasion of privacy and I do guard my private life, such as it is. Mostly, I stayed away from social media because it made me feel bad about myself...for no reason!
The facial recognition software is the creepiest of all and Uckerberg grabbed onto it like a drunk to a bottle.
I feel the same way. I believe Facebook has truly caused the downfall of our society. As it veered into a format for older people, it became their single source of news and everything on the internet became true. And now here we are in an absolute mess. Admittedly, I had Facebook from 2008-2020, and insta which I deleted for the new year. Uneducated people and meta are something else.
As a senior, I find it terrifying. It makes me glad my time here is on the shorter end. But I worry for my daughters and granddaughters. It's bad enough with men watching you constantly, but this takes it to a level that would make me stay in permanently.
WHY are we all just blithely going along with this? ALL this shit is geared toward abusing vulnerable people, most likely women and children. NONE of it is actually value added and it's sickening. I'm at the point all AI just needs to be destroyed because there aren't really any truly ethical elites and nobody is making them regulated.
Actually sometimes women/females...ex. Bondi and other Trump followers. Happy to use them and pissed when used by others against them to expose their abuses.
"Creeps" are going to abuse any technology they can.
Meantime, these things have been a game-changer for blind people like me. They can describe scenery, tell me where things are, and read anything from mail to a menu to that jar in my pantry, all hands free.
So. . .this is Zuckerberg's life come full circle: a creepy book of women in college ------->>> creepy database for finding women ------>>> creepy glasses to photograph women and put them into facial-recognition megabytes.
This guy has some seriously misogynistic issues!
And knowing that, I will never understand why every woman doesn't immediately delete her Meta accounts—every one of them: FB, Instagram, WhatsApp.
Not all men, but always men. And oligarchs.
If the Epstein files haven’t already made me leery of men, when I’m looking to date, let’s just add this layer of creepiness to them
Smart glasses an excellent way of recording ICE and CBP
Like me, your glass is half full, and also like me, the water is dirty.
The only positive thing about them
Probably better if we don’t go there.
Here is the scary thing. Infra red technology. When I was in Vietnam, someone took a picture of Ann Margaret with an Infra red lenses, she was naked, she of couirse heard about and threatened to sue. I don't know how that went.
Infrared (IR) technology can technically see through some thin, dark synthetic fabrics by detecting heat or reflecting IR light rather than visible light. However, effective "see-through" glasses for this purpose do not exist for consumers; these capabilities are limited to specialized, high-cost cameras, often require specific, thin clothing types, and cannot penetrate thick materials.
Considering technological advances I would say that that AI statement is wrong.
I would wager Zuckerberg and other billionairies have their own
When the facial recognition begins, getting added to any database oligarchy want; then we all need to start wearing masks and hats.
And also sunglasses
And carry mace, pepper spray, air horns and a whistle.
Oh my God.
Yes, this is your future unless we start regulating tech Nazi products. This is issue #1 for me; I'll vote for no candidate who takes their PAC money or refuses to hold them accountable for all damages they cause.
Repeal Section 230, require all deepfake AI slop to be clearly labeled as such, regulate toxic algorithms, prohibit chatbots from speaking in the 1st person or masquerading as human, prohibit hoovering up all internet and social media data, punish IP and copyright theft.
Dude, no, are you insane?
Repealing Section 230 would only do more harm than good.
You give me zero reasons to support your argument. Here are mine:
No other industry in our country is immune from prosecution for harm caused by its products, but Section 230 does just that for social media. There is ample research showing their unregulated algorithms have caused suicides, depression, eating disorders, and are more addictive than heroin. Their algorithms promote "engagement," the source of all their billions in profits, and engagement increases with posts that incite anger, hate, and fear, thus promoting a minority of issues to the top of public awareness while the truth and useful, accurate information gets pushed to the bottom. That's just a start. I don't have time for the rest, but perhaps you could investigate *from reliable sources of fact* what I just pointed out.
But what about the people who AREN'T billionaires and/or perverts? What about the common folk who get censored by people in power because they don't like what they have to say about them? What about marginalized people who get their voices stifled because they're not white, straight, cis, male, and/or Christian. Are you suggesting that removing protection from people who use social media and promoting censorship is a great idea? Because God knows that has done nothing but hurt people who aren't our fascist rulers.
Just look here: https://www.thefire.org/news/why-repealing-or-weakening-section-230-very-bad-idea
And here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/actions/joseph-gordon-levitt-letter/?link_id=1&can_id=5055aed58526636ecb86b2cf10d7c9b3&source=email-tba-27&email_referrer=email_3105107___subject_3593037&email_subject=joseph-gordon-levitt-listen-to-queer-youth-on-section-230&&
There are better ways to combat deepfakes, privacies being invaded, and algorithms, but removing the one thing that protects users' free speech isn't one of them.
First, check your last sentence. Once again you have not made any case for what those "better ways" are. If you'd like to see some constructive examples, read Gary Marcus's book "Taming Silicon Valley; How We Can Ensure that AI Works for Us."
Second, I'm not advocating censoring free speech, i.e., what's posted on their platforms. I'm advocating for regulating their algorithms, which do exactly what you're concerned about: boost posts that incite anger, fear, or hate—regardless of whether they are true or not—and suppress other, more factual, useful, educational, marginal, or inspirational posts that don't increase the clicks and engagement that fuel tech profits.
I looked up The Fire organization to see who is in charge. They are all from elite universities and appear to me to be biased toward the Silicon Valley set and Epstein class, i.e. Harvey Silvergate, who is Princeton and Harvard educated and who chose as a client the disgraced insurrectionist lawyer John Eastman: "Among his more prominent clients was John Eastman, a fellow attorney controversial for his service to Donald Trump." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Silverglate}
These guys remind me of Musk, who claimed when he bought Twitter that he wanted to promote free speech, then immediately created algorithms that suppressed all speech he didn't like and amplified his own toxic speech along with Nazis, misogynists, and trans haters.
Just forget it, I don’t wanna argue about this anymore because you won't listen.
But if you want to hear a solution, how about getting out there a sue the b*stards instead of expecting the gonvernment to help, because all they're doing is helping themselves and their friends and only pass laws that makes themselves happy.
God I hate Mark Zuckerberg with a passion. And although maybe a little humble brag, but I'm nowhere on FB, meta, Insta, TickTok, or X. I saw this coming, the complete and utter invasion of privacy and I do guard my private life, such as it is. Mostly, I stayed away from social media because it made me feel bad about myself...for no reason!
The facial recognition software is the creepiest of all and Uckerberg grabbed onto it like a drunk to a bottle.
I feel the same way. I believe Facebook has truly caused the downfall of our society. As it veered into a format for older people, it became their single source of news and everything on the internet became true. And now here we are in an absolute mess. Admittedly, I had Facebook from 2008-2020, and insta which I deleted for the new year. Uneducated people and meta are something else.
These will definitely encourage more face-to-face social interaction. NOT!
This is terrifying.
As a senior, I find it terrifying. It makes me glad my time here is on the shorter end. But I worry for my daughters and granddaughters. It's bad enough with men watching you constantly, but this takes it to a level that would make me stay in permanently.
WHY are we all just blithely going along with this? ALL this shit is geared toward abusing vulnerable people, most likely women and children. NONE of it is actually value added and it's sickening. I'm at the point all AI just needs to be destroyed because there aren't really any truly ethical elites and nobody is making them regulated.
Actually sometimes women/females...ex. Bondi and other Trump followers. Happy to use them and pissed when used by others against them to expose their abuses.
"Creeps" are going to abuse any technology they can.
Meantime, these things have been a game-changer for blind people like me. They can describe scenery, tell me where things are, and read anything from mail to a menu to that jar in my pantry, all hands free.
terrifying
Dude, this is disgusting, how is this even legal?
This weirds me out.
Zuck is at a 'cognitive disadvantage' he can't begin to imagine.