What’s hard to understand is why you skipped the question I asked, and answered a different one instead.

The creation of the CSAM is unquestionably far more harmful, but I wasn’t talking about the *creation *- I was talking about the possession. The harm of the creation is already done, and whether or not the material exists after that does nothing to undo that harm.

Again, is your prescription the same as it relates to the possession, not generation of CSAM?

Strange of you to respond to a comment about the fakes being shared in this way…

Do you have the same prescriptions in relation to someone with a stash of CSAM, and if not, why not?

The internet made photos of trump and putin kissing shirtless.

And is that OK?

I’m going to jump in on this one and say yes - it’s mostly fine.

I look at these things through the lens of the harm they do and the benefits they deliver - consequentialism and act utilitarianism.

The benefits are artistic, comedic and political.

The “harm” is that Putin and or Trump might feel bad, maaaaaaybe enough that they’d kill themselves. All that gets put back up under benefits as far as I’m concerned - they’re both extremely powerful monsters that have done and will continue to do incredible harm.

The real harm is that such works risk normalising this treatment of regular folk, which is genuinely harmful. I think that’s unlikely, but it’s impossible to rule out.

Similarly, the dissemination of the kinds of AI fakes under discussion is a negative because they do serious,measurable harm.

…before attending the definitely voluntary after work drinks and trundling home to your shoebox out in the inaka.

Better/worse depends on your frame of reference…

The UK is generally worse than it was 50 years ago, and better than it was 150 years ago. It’s generally better than Japan today.

Not being an arsehole is a pretty decent start whatever the case is.

The Japanese work culture is an absolute dumpster fire - the reason all their media is focused on highschoolers is that high school was the last time anyone had a shred of freedom.

But broadly, yeah - there’s not much incentive to respect the norms of a system that’s completely fucked you, then demands compliance.

Why would anyone want the cybertruck? Yet at present, it’ll take them over a year to clear their backlog.

Some people are just dumb - that applies doubly for those that love Musk because he speaks the Nazi conspiracism Truth™.

They’ve also stolen code from emulators (who I think they also sued).

In response to an 8 year old existing.

Given his fragility, cowardice, lack of self-assurance and failure to defend himself - all feminine traits (to these ghouls anyway) are we sure the good senator isn’t trans himself? He’s certainly not the picture of brave, confident masculinity.

DeSantis wears high heels - I’m pretty sure Trump does too (though smaller) - projection indeed.

The whole tablet UI switching had huge potential - particularly for 2-in-ones and to a lesser extent, mobile devices, but Microsoft absolutely butchered it in its infancy with atrocious execution, and by having the hubris to hobble their primary use-case (desktop) for the sake of pushing their half-baked nonsense into the mobile market. Users didn’t do themselves any favours by not understanding that you could just hit start then type the first couple of letters of what you want to launch (what kind of website double-clicking weirdo clicks through the whole start menu without pinned links or search anyway?).

To me, it all reeks of designers/PMs/devs putting forward a super-promising concept, which was ruined by a bunch of overpaid MBA dipshits that thought they knew better.

Welcome to Lemmy - where everything is made up and the points don’t matter.

The greatest flaw in the system is the fragmentation and consequential cost - when things were consolidated under Netflix, things weren’t perfect but it can’t be said that they weren’t far better.

The true underlying flaw is capitalism, but isn’t it always?

Oh no!

…Anyway.

Hoists Jolly Roger

You don’t visit the site when you punch a query into your browser search bar.

Ultimately, Google are making the change they are because they know how deceptive they were being. Google knows it, I know it, Google seems concerned the courts know it, I’m not sure why you’d choose to dig in on this one.

That lack of delineation is also an issue, but a separate one. That said, I’d think an average user would think doing a Google search from an incog tab would be anonymised and not tied to them because of the privacy incog grants (or more accurately, doesn’t). There’s reasonable arguments to be made on either side of this point, but I think that Google have been intentionally misleading - which is now creating problems for them, motivating this change.

Again, all the information Google present when opening an incog tab would lead someone to the conclusion that Google won’t track them. Unless I’m mistaken, when this came up years back, Google explicitly denied tracking people in incognito mode, and they’re only changing their disclaimers now in response to a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.

No thoughts on the perception they seem to be crafting very deliberately?

Because the AI isn’t needed, and would be computationally expensive.

Extensions like ublock origin and sponsorblock work just fine.

To be clear, I was aware of the risk thanks to previous reports and my work in the cybersecurity space. I’m talking about the average user.

The name is deceptive, and explicitly calling out a list of parties that may see your traffic without naming themselves is deceptive.

It’s akin to a guard saying beware doors 1 and 3 - there are dragons behind them. If you hear this from an authority that would know, you’d probably assume there’s not a dragon behind door 2, or they would have said so.

The perception of “the man on the street” is a common legal standard that I’d argue Google has fallen short of here.

I don’t use Chrome because I don’t trust Google. I assumed they were tracking users based on previous reports.

I’m saying that i think a reasonable person would expect that their incognito browsing traffic wouldn’t be monitored and passed to Google. This reasonable person standard is the legal standard for advertising and marketing claims in my country and many others.

The disclaimer explicitly calls out that your activity might still be visible to sites, you visit, your employer or school, and your ISP - they notably say nothing about Google. That kind of thing is very misleading.

Where in that disclaimer (or otherwise) would I get the impression Google will track me?