I guess advertisers have no issues with Meta’s changes. Interesting. A few years ago, they’d be falling over themselves to signal that “hate has no place here”. But it is no longer profitable to be LGBTQ+ so let the hateful bell ring.
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
244 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
60331 readers
4068 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Eh. The advertisers will be back to supporting LGBTQ whenever that month of year comes back
This year? Doubt.
~~LGBTQ+~~ Everyone, but LGBTQ+ people especially need to get the the fuck off of Meta services now, they've showed what side they're on.
Straight+cis people too. I'm downloading an export of my Facebook info as we speak in preparation for closing it down.
I just deleted my old, disused Instagram account I hadn't touched in a long long time. Nothing even worth saving since I never uploaded anything to it. It was the only Meta account I still had around.
That sounds like encouraging queer folk to flee public spaces which sounds like a favourable outcome to the conservatives. Is giving ground the best idea really?
I don't know how to stress this any more clearly: A privately owned social media site isn't actually a public space. It's literally the definition of a private space. It's more akin to a mall than a library. That's the whole issue, how does it help to be on a site where all the admins have to do is shut down your speech and ban you anyway? Where everything you do, every move you make is tracked and monetized and studied to be used against you? It's by definition a surveillance state where you have no rights.
You realize they make money from ads and if the majority of people stop using their services they stop making enough money to function as a business? They may already have your data but you don't need to be giving them more.
The bigger issue is that corporations have commodified public spaces. You can take back public spaces by choosing to not use their services and convincing others not to. Facebook is already dying which is why they rolled out bullshit AI profiles and the public response to that went really badly. But they live and die by engagement so if they already are needing to turn to faking engagement to keep people on and money rolling in, then isn't a boycott literally the way to cut them off at the knees and stop them being a public space?
Forgive me if I didn't make clear that everyone needs to do it, not just LGBTQ+, my point is there are very few reasons to keep using these services for any person with a conscience.
Like you’ve mentioned, real public spaces have been killed so by quitting FB and other corpo social media you effectively self-ostracise as there are little alternatives. Yeah, you’re playing their game but when you’re losing you need humility rather than some moral high ground. If you want to affect the change you need to talk to people.
Real life exists dude. Facebook isn't the only place to talk to people.
Agreed but we invented other forms of communication for a reason.
Okay, let's be clear about this: staying on Facebook isn't "humility." It's selfishly selling out to simp for the fucking enemy.
That’s the moral high ground speaking. I was like that too but at some point it was too hard to not notice that it wasn’t very effective. I’m pretty sure grannies on my local FB arthritis support group have bigger problems than navigating ethics of social media and politics.
I was in admin chat on facebook and it was blocking any posts with links to https://lemmy.world. I was talking to admins about firing up a lemmy instance and leave the FB group as a link to a lemmy community
I'm kinda shocked people still actively use Facebook.
Only ~3,000,000,000 people/month.
Never used Facebook, never fucking will.
I haven't in over a decade. I think I'm up to eight different word filters trying to stop news stories about this from showing up on my feed. If they didn't have such a stupid name I could just block the term meta.
Plot twist: that was their plan all along.
What about WhatsApp?
What about Instagram?
Also does your Lemmy instance federate with Threads?
Friendly reminder: Deleting your account won't accomplish what you think it will.
Facebook will still keep all data that is associated with other users as per their own disclaimer. They also still keep logs that are "disassociated with personal identifiers. "
So all training can still occur. And understand what while Jane Smith may have deleted her account, they still have all the data it takes to indicate that User 12345 was tagged in photos with John Smith at the Burger King on 404 Fake St. And, because of that, the data that User 12345 had previously provided is ALSO John Smith's data. And Fred Wilkerson since he was at that Burger King once. And so forth.
And ALL that data is still there for training.
So do what you gotta do to make it less appealing to other users. But understand your data is already out there and is never going away. Same with reddit and all other social media (which includes Lemmy).
Yeah but you know what? That's still better than actively engaging with their "services".
Eventually, it'll just be bots interacting with themselves, given enough time.
Eventually, it'll just be bots interacting with themselves, given enough time.
It seems like that's a good chunk of it already
Yes. Like I said. Do what you gotta do to make it less appealing to other users.
But if, for example, you are an LGBTQIA+ person who thinks this will provide any form of protection...
If you're in the US, sure. If you're in Europe you can compel them to completely delete everything as per the GDPR.
And I am sure a company that is now openly training their LLMs on copyrighted materials is going to totally comply with all of that...
One of these days people are going to learn "But it is against the law" doesn't apply to the rich and powerful, law enforcement, or megacorporations.
Training LLMs on copyright material isn't illegal to begin with, just like how learning from a pirated book isn't or having drugs in your system isn't, only being in possession of these things is illegal.
GDPR violations are on the other hand - illegal. You're right in principle, don't get me wrong and I appreciate your healthy cynicism but in this particular case being slapped with a GDPR fine is actually not worth keeping the data of one user.
Edit: Downvoted for being right as usual. Bruh Lemmy is becoming more and more like Reddit every day.
Training LLMs on copyright material isn’t illegal to begin with
Reproducing identifiable chunks of copyrighted content in the LLM's output is copyright infringement, though, and that's what training on copyrighted material leads to. Of course, that's the other end of the process and it's a tort, not a crime, so yeah, you make a good point that the company's legal calculus could be different.
Thank you, I'm glad someone is sane ITT.
To further refine the point, do you know of any lawsuits that were ruled successfully on the basis that as you say - the company that made the LLM is responsible because someone could prompt it to reproduce identifiable chunks of copyright material? Which specific bills make it so?
Wouldn't it be like suing Seagate because I use their hard drives to pirate corpo media? I thought Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. would serve as the basis there and just like Betamax it'd be distribution of copyright material by an end user that would be problematic, rather than the potential of a product to be used for copyright infringement.