Novocirab
Guter Artikel, auch gut fand ich diese zwei darunter verlinkten:
Deutschland profitiert bis heute von Kinderarbeit – und schaut weg (mit viel Historie über Deutschland, 2024)
Bio, fair und ohne Kinderarbeit (Bloß etwas kleinteilig. Speziell über den Anbau von Kakao, Kaffee u.a., 2021, also noch aus dem Kontext der Diskussion vorm Lieferkettengesetz)
Siehe auch dieser Artikel eines Hundetrainers, wo er erklärt, dass er die ABA-Methoden auf Hunde niemals anwenden würde, weil sie inhuman und ein Verstoß gegen den Ethik-Code seiner Profession sind: Is ABA Really “Dog Training for Children”? A Professional Dog Trainer Weighs In.
Great summary. One additional note: Using LibreWolf with the KeePassXC extension makes the issue with re-logging into accounts much less of a hassle. However, the extension unfortunately doesn't work well when using the Flatpak package of LibreWolf. So, if there is a native LibreWolf package for your distribution, use that one; it should give you a good experience.
Pepole say that with some fiddling it is possible to get KeePassXC integrated even with the Flatpak version, but I for one wasn't successful in that. So, if there is no native package for your distro, try compiling LibreWolf yourself, or perhaps try the AppImage, or else you may have one reason more to choose Waterfox (at least if there is a native Waterfox package for your distro).
Apart from not being that interesting for now, the first line of defence for most is manually-approved sign ups, as far as I can tell.
When the Fediverse grows, I think that weeding out accounts that post slop will be the "easy" part; the hardest part will be to identify the silent bot accounts that do nothing but upvote.
For context, Ecuador has 18 million inhabitants.
So Republicans call “AI moratorium” something that is actually the opposite of a moratorium: a ban of regulation on “AI”.
Not that it is surprising they employ double-speak, but just to set things straight.
So Republicans call "AI moratorium" something which is actually the opposite of a moratorium: a ban of regulation on "AI".
Not that it is surprising they employ double-speak, but just to set things straight.
And, most importantly, it's about so much more than just the banners. For example:
(1) A new GDPR loophole via "pseudonyms" or "IDs". The Commission proposes to significantly narrow the definition of "personal data" – which would result in the GDPR not applying to many companies in various sectors. For example, sectors that currently operate via "pseudonyms" or random ID numbers, such as data brokers or the advertising industry, would not be (fully) covered anymore. This would done by adding a "subjective approach" in the text of the GDPR.
Instead of having an objective definition of personal data (e.g. data that is linked to a directly or indirectly identifiable person), a subjective definition would mean that if a specific company claims that it cannot (yet) or does not aim to (currently) identify a person, the GDPR ceases to apply. Such a case-by-case decision is inherently more complex and everything but a “simplification”. It also means that data may be “personal” or not depending on the internal thinking of a company, or given the circumstances that they have at a current point. This can also make cooperation between companies more complex as some would fall under the GDPR and others not.
(2) Pulling personal data from your device? So far, Article 5(3) ePrivacy has protected users against remote access of data stored on "terminal equipment", such as PCs or smartphones. This is based on the right to protection of communications under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and made sure that companies cannot "remotely search" devices.
The Commission now adds "white listed" processing operations for the access to terminal equipment, that would include "aggregated statistics" and "security purposes". While the general direction of changes is understandable, the wording is extremely permissive and would also allow excessive "searches" on user devices for (tiny) security purposes.
(3) AI Training of Meta or Google with EU's Personal Data? When Meta or LinkedIn started using social media data, it was widely unpopular. In a recent study for example only 7% of Germans say that they want Meta to use their personal data to train AI. Nevertheless, the Commission now wants to allow the use of highly personal data (like the content of 15+ years of a social media profile) for AI training by Big Tech.
"We're getting rid of the cookie banners" and "removing overly rigid regulation" is apparently how this massive proposal is being framed now, but what it chiefly does is—of course—benefit giant corporations, do little if anything for smaller companies, and fuck over people's privacy.
Licensing terms only govern the legal aspects, not social and moral aspects.
