3 ms·

I'm not thrilled with Netlify's behavior as claimed by this EFF post, but I'd like to speak on a different concern: Couldn't this activism have been just as ef

by neilv 2y ago

I'm not thrilled with Netlify's behavior as claimed by this EFF post, but I'd like to speak on a different concern: Couldn't this activism have been just as effective, if done without libel? We're in the AI counterfeiting era now. It's time to be more conscientious about false accusations. "It's OK when I do it, because it's protected parody/satire! But when other people do it, to smear my business, or my friend, or my favored political candidate, by name, and they claim it's parody/satire, it's not OK, because... uh... reasons!" If we think we're entitled to do it, can we complain when millions of others then also do it?

chatmasta 2y ago
Who says the same people are advancing the conflicting arguments? I can only speak for myself, but my position is consistent here. (btw, what is the name of this logical fallacy that assigns two beliefs from a population to the population as a whole? It seems like a variant of No True Scottsman but maybe there’s a more precise label for it?)
- neilv 2y ago
  I'm not an expert writer, but I thought it was an OK way to say "these two beliefs we've heard are conflicting; don't hold them both", as part of an argument to say that we need to rethink and think more clearly about "parody" Obviously, we collectively have those conflicting beliefs. And I suggest that collectively resolving these is going to be forced by AI fakes and social media.
feoren 2y ago
No. Poking the hornet's nest is an effective and sometimes necessary part of activism. The whole reason we've heard of these guys is because they poked those companies. That's why they used their real logos. Using fake logos makes no sense there, and if they had done that, neither of us would have heard this story. It's a bit like the argument "sure, Black Lives Matter, but do they have to be kneeling during a football game?" Protests are fine, as long as they never inconvenience anyone, are never loud or obnoxious, are never seen nor heard nor felt. Well, then, they're not protests, they're LARPing. I get the feeling that in practice, those "uh... reasons" will turn out to be blatant. As in: one is obviously an attempt to scam and defraud people, and the other is an obvious parody. And obviousness matters: the crux is whether it's likely to deceive a "reasonable person" or not. You can like or hate that criteria, but that's been consistent since trademarks were invented.
- neilv 2y ago
  * It's OK to fabricate about a company doing some ridiculous thing, because it's activism, and they are getting attention to their cause. * It's not OK to fabricate about some politician doing some ridiculous thing, because that's lying, to manipulate? How is the latter case not also activism, and getting attention to their cause?
  - feoren 2y ago
    I told you what the line is: would a "reasonable person" be fooled or not? It has nothing to do with companies vs. politicians. You are using the word "fabricate" to cover a huge range of different things. Like "oh, so it's OK to kill your fears, but it's not OK to kill a politician!? Hypocrite much?" ... no? You've only made it sound hypocritical because you used the same word for both.
    - neilv 2y ago
      I should've spelled it out, but I used politician for a couple reasons. One of the reasons is that whether a reasonable person would think that was actually true is no longer relevant. Look at the batpoop behavior of some very prominent politicians -- you can't distinguish that from parody. And look at the level of critical thinking we're seeing, with huge numbers of people believing things we think a reasonable person would consider improbable or seek confirmation. In this environment, I assert that the defense of "a reasonable person would realize this is parody" is no longer true.

by neilv 2y ago

chatmasta 2y ago

Who says the same people are advancing the conflicting arguments? I can only speak for myself, but my position is consistent here. (btw, what is the name of this logical fallacy that assigns two beliefs from a population to the population as a whole? It seems like a variant of No True Scottsman but maybe there’s a more precise label for it?)

neilv 2y ago
I'm not an expert writer, but I thought it was an OK way to say "these two beliefs we've heard are conflicting; don't hold them both", as part of an argument to say that we need to rethink and think more clearly about "parody" Obviously, we collectively have those conflicting beliefs. And I suggest that collectively resolving these is going to be forced by AI fakes and social media.

feoren 2y ago

No. Poking the hornet's nest is an effective and sometimes necessary part of activism. The whole reason we've heard of these guys is because they poked those companies. That's why they used their real logos. Using fake logos makes no sense there, and if they had done that, neither of us would have heard this story. It's a bit like the argument "sure, Black Lives Matter, but do they have to be kneeling during a football game?" Protests are fine, as long as they never inconvenience anyone, are never loud or obnoxious, are never seen nor heard nor felt. Well, then, they're not protests, they're LARPing. I get the feeling that in practice, those "uh... reasons" will turn out to be blatant. As in: one is obviously an attempt to scam and defraud people, and the other is an obvious parody. And obviousness matters: the crux is whether it's likely to deceive a "reasonable person" or not. You can like or hate that criteria, but that's been consistent since trademarks were invented.

neilv 2y ago
* It's OK to fabricate about a company doing some ridiculous thing, because it's activism, and they are getting attention to their cause. * It's not OK to fabricate about some politician doing some ridiculous thing, because that's lying, to manipulate? How is the latter case not also activism, and getting attention to their cause?
- feoren 2y ago
  I told you what the line is: would a "reasonable person" be fooled or not? It has nothing to do with companies vs. politicians. You are using the word "fabricate" to cover a huge range of different things. Like "oh, so it's OK to kill your fears, but it's not OK to kill a politician!? Hypocrite much?" ... no? You've only made it sound hypocritical because you used the same word for both.
  - neilv 2y ago
    I should've spelled it out, but I used politician for a couple reasons. One of the reasons is that whether a reasonable person would think that was actually true is no longer relevant. Look at the batpoop behavior of some very prominent politicians -- you can't distinguish that from parody. And look at the level of critical thinking we're seeing, with huge numbers of people believing things we think a reasonable person would consider improbable or seek confirmation. In this environment, I assert that the defense of "a reasonable person would realize this is parody" is no longer true.