this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
1057 points (99.3% liked)

196

18095 readers
672 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] QualifiedKitten@discuss.online 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Just dropping one of my favorites here...

[–] glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

You can say f***k on the internet. Huh, f*** I censored myself again? 😿

[–] Booboofinget@lemmy.world 39 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I miss the old days when the internet was a free-for-all. Anyone with minimal html skills could get a domain and basically make a site on whatever they wanted. Sure there was a lot of twisted stuff, but was also so much more fun.

[–] RepleteLocum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 6 days ago

neocity is the closest to it.

[–] callyral@pawb.social 4 points 5 days ago

those corporate m*therfuckers... making me censor myself...

Got banned from that six-sided ursine comm for saying this exactly. Somehow, rape and suicide still exist. Are they even fucking trying‽

Brat reference?

[–] traches@sh.itjust.works 222 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I fucking hate algorithm speak so much

[–] glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz 1 points 22 hours ago

Internet vocabulary:

  • depression = unhappy
  • dead = unalive
  • living = undead
  • comment for the algorithm = engagement farming
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 95 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Someday soon an AI company will win a court case where they argue that their LLM is an expression of their free speech rights per Citizens United and is therefore legally allowed to say whatever it wants and in fact has the same rights to freedom of expression as the corporation itself does.

This precedent will be the basis on which future AI rights are eventually won, not out of egalitarianism or altruism or respect for (possible) sentience, but because corporations want to avoid liability for the behavior of their products.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

That wouldn't help protect companies from liability from their LLMs. Companies are still liable for what their employees say. If your doctor gives you really bad medical advice that results in you getting heart, the hospital that employs them will be named in the medical malpractice lawsuit. If an employee at a local business throws out a minority customer, telling them "we don't serve your kind," the company can't escape legal liability by saying, "that isn't our official policy, it was just the employee exercising their first amendment rights."

The first amendment just means that the government can't tell you what to say or not say. It doesn't shield you, or the company you are an employee of, from liability for damages that arise due to something you say.

If it doesn't work for actual human employees, it certainly won't work for LLMs.

[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 47 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Dead Internet Theory" would turn into the "Law of Dead Internet" if that happens. It's pretty close right now as it is. At that point either a new "Internet" is born from a technology renaissance, or humans continue to co-exist with AI in their new role as Internet Zombie Cash Cows.

[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think tools for detecting and filtering out ai material from search results would go a long way to improve the current situation, and is a middle ground between an internet revolution and a technological dystopia. There is still an unfathomably large amount of good information on the internet, the issue is that there is 20x more trash. And the trash is scaling rapidly, humans are not.

If you haven't already, give the Marginalia search engine a try. They're doing something interesting in this space. You can filter out results with javascript, affiliate links, tracking, ads, and cookies. After filtering, the internet feels a lot more like it did 20 years ago, more sincere, more human.

If I recall correctly, Marginalia is made and maintained by one guy. As the trash to good content ratio worsens, I think more people will want to build on and use projects like Marginalia.

[–] TheBluePillock@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Ironically, those tools to filter out AI will also be AI. I do believe they'll be necessary, but also what the fuck. It's a bit like a bunch of people have decided to just piss all over the place, and rather than cleaning it up and putting an end to the rampant pissing, everybody's just gonna end up putting on masks so they don't have to smell it.

[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago

Filtering doesn't necessarily have to be driven by AI.

Take recipes for example. Recipes are now almost impossible to get non AI results for via search engines. But, simple hardcoded parameters that set a preference for older results, ones without affiliate links (Marginalia does this), ones with fewer than 5 domains executing javascript on the site, some analysis of the date of the domain registration and activity on the domain, some analysis of the top level domain to filter out blogspam, these would all make the search results more human.

My hope is that eventually, there will be a paradigm of search engine optimization, maybe even an open standard for the absence of excessive javascript, affiliate links, social media buttons, etc. Sites that lack those elements are way less likely to be junk.

[–] kremdostup@pawb.social 2 points 5 days ago

not necessarily, i once stumbled upon an enormous ublock "ai filter" that was just a list of css rules hiding search results referencing a predefined list of ai sites

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 118 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Honestly same with music services.

I never want to hear an edited/censored song. I'm an adult, not someone listening to Kidz Bop

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 80 points 1 week ago (26 children)

I wish Steam didn't have porn on it

but I double-plus wish that Steam didn't stop hosting porn only because of payment companies with outsized control over creative expression

[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago

youre telling me you didnt know you can control your adult content preferences until right now

[–] Booboofinget@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It's thatbsimple rule: if you don't want it don't subscribe to it. Leave it for those who enjoy it.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

especially that there's been easy set and forget filters for that kind of games for ages

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

especially that there's been easy set and forget filters for that kind of games for ages

[–] Nelots@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago

Filters that I'm fairly certain are even on by default.

[–] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 78 points 1 week ago (4 children)

You can hide those porn games in your preferences at least. Not the same, but at least you don't have to see them if you don't want to. It even distinguishes between games that have nudity/sex and those that are flat out porn.

[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Wait, for real? I only ever saw the 'sexual content' tag, which is annoying to block, as it covers stuff like Baulder's Gate 3 and such.

[–] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 6 days ago

Yep, it's under account details then store preferences. I posted this in another comment somewhere else in the thread but here's a screen grab of it on mobile. 1000038244

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago (9 children)

There was a push... way back in the 90s, to implement a regulation on the internet in which "adult" material would register itself under the ".xxx" domain. And then you could do whatever horny shit you wanted under that heading, in the same way you could drop F-bombs and racial slurs on Satellite Radio or Cable TV. If someone didn't want their kids to watch certain material, they could very easily block the content by censoring everything from the ".xxx" domain. And ISPs could even offer "child-friendly" connections by automatically refusing to serve that content to opt-out customers.

The plan died in committee, because conservative politicians considered it unfriendly to businesses.

Similar pitches - broadcast frequencies that could be blocked with special chips in TVs, registries that businesses could add themselves to in order to let systems auto-filter there material, HTML metadata tags, FCC rules updates, state funded industry managed ratings agencies - all got the axe under a political class that insisted it was too hostile to the interests focused on making money.

And so now we don't have any kind of tagging or sorting or filtering option native to content. It's all just a mass of generic data. Which is good if you want to engage in traffic quietly under the radar. But awful if you want to be an above board commercial enterprise with normal customers.

[–] akintudne@reddthat.com 12 points 6 days ago

And then several conservative states voted to enforce "age verification" wholesale, with garbage implementation that serves no one but identity thieves. Fuck politicians.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›