3 ms·
Oof my bad. I should have added "websites I visit", or "website I've seen". I don't keep track of them, but if I try to think of any websites that I've visited
by quectophoton 2y ago
Oof my bad. I should have added "websites I visit", or "website I've seen". I don't keep track of them, but if I try to think of any websites that I've visited e.g. since last month that are not in violation, only ~4 come to mind. And since I don't have any exact numbers, I have no choice but to give a conservative estimate.
I'm usually careful with wording since not everyone tries to read in good faith, but I was probably too tired at the time to notice.
I apologize for any offense that my comment might have caused.
- peoplefromibiza 2y agoNo offense, I simply wanted to show that, even if what you say it's true, there is no "police state" trying to monitor and eventually shut down the Internet, like many are suggesting here and that there is a lot of leeway for the smaller actors. Nobody is really worried if the website for Go packages doesn't fully respect GDPR, except maybe Go it's a Google product, but the best they can infer it's the demographics of Go developers, which they probably already know. What is important is that the data collectors can be held responsible for the infringements. Same objective I imagine for EIGAR (I know some of the founders), it is not to stop generative art using AI, but to stop pretending that massive data scraping of copyrighted material is fair use when Disney or Amazon or Netflix or any other tech mogul profits from them. Hollywood writers and the actors' guild have already gone on strike over this, this is nothing new or unexpected, it was simply waiting to happen, it's Newton's third law of motion applied to humans.