The lie made into the rule of the world.

  • 19 Posts
  • 640 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 22nd, 2024

help-circle
  • commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws.

    They’re not?

    They’re listing 2 possibilities:

    Status quo: the whole AI (and tech in general) remains foreign controlled.

    EU makes a change in GDPR Law

    Maybe you can add a third option, like: “Perhaps GDPR law isn’t the reason why AI and tech sector in EU is so non-existant”, and a constructive conversation could’ve been had.

    Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?

    Yes.

    when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote

    That’s sadly incorrect. You responded to an incorrect assumption made about the original comment.




  • explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation

    I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.

    coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

    The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.

    I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?












  • How is there any real difference to the end user?

    For example many people can’t find their saved files anymore in windows, as it auto saves in some programs to onedrive. Yet some other programs can’t read from onedrive. That’s a real difference in usability. And ofcourse also in terms of invasion of privacy.

    For example, my mother became unable to read her email, as outlook changed UI completely and unavoidably. Had she chosen to use better software that would not have happened. A real difference.

    For example, when searching for a local program, microsoft now also serves ads in the search results. Many people fall for those ads, that also include scams. That’s a real problem you don’t have with better software.

    The examples keep on going on. And the end users do complain about them, often. They pay so much money for a worse experience.




  • People in large will keep using it because they’ve no clue what a computer is. They just recognise symbols and which order to click them.

    The product keeps on getting worse.

    People will get angry and look for political “solutions” to their own unwillingness to learn.

    As a result all of networking and computing will be made worse, with lots of red tape, solidifying an oligarchy, penalizing the alternatives.

    Just like how there were 1000s of car makers in the 20th century, but now only a handfull. Legislating cars to be shitty DRM-ed smartphones on wheels.