If someone is using it as a platform to get their message out to people obviously they'll care if they're banned from it. Can't just say that someone bad having the power to issue those bans means they don't matter.
psychothumbs
joined 1 year ago
749
Feds target SUV, truck size to save pedestrian lives — ‘one of the last frontiers of vehicle safety’
(chicago.suntimes.com)
How can any line that is on the surface of a sphere by straight rather than a curve?
I think you got it and effectively answered it, thanks.
How do you work the office only having space for 20% of employees? Makes a lot of sense but would be annoying to hot desk. My office only has us in two days a week but has not cut down on the number of desks at all, giving up the potential savings.
Reason is consistently libertarian, so they're pro-billionaire but anti-cop.
Yeah I'm not really seeing the harassment angle when you have to track these kids down on TikTok to see the videos.
No copyright is about the "right" to "copy" the work in question, not the attribution. Works that are in the public domain still list the author.
Shortening the time is good, and adjusting it while it still does apply to allow for more legal free sharing of the work.
Eliminating copyright doesn't mean they'd be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing. Anything an artist creates blowing up and gaining wide appreciation is very good for that artist's future prospects. An artist who is spreading their work for free anyway is much better off in the scenario where there's no copyright and everyone understands the need to tip / patronize their favorite artists.
If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you're trying to gain.
"your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on."
The default is already for young artists to share a lot of their work hoping to get noticed. Getting rid of copyright would be reorienting the whole system to center that experience more rather than the established artists and art producing corporations who now are in a strong enough position to charge. "Making it" would just mean that your patreon was doing gangbusters rather than selling a lot of copies of whatever your art is.
view more: next ›
I'm not sure I understand how deepfake porn is supposed to be ruining lives here. From the article it seems like the issue is not any concern that it would be mistaken for real, but instead just people having a very horrified reaction to seeing that sort of depiction of themselves? Mostly it seems like the deepfake aspect is sort of a trivial distraction to the real issue on display there of gangs of men targeting random women for online harassment. If there was no such thing as deepfakes other sexually explicit or disturbing images could sub in easily enough.
Maybe the new deepfake ban will be useful as a way of going after these harassment gangs that previously didn't face legal consequences? But it's sort of an inexact tool for that job, given that there are presumably lots of deepfake images out there not used for harassment, and that's it's easy enough for harassers to switch away from deepfakes if using them becomes a major legal vulnerability.