Isn’t the reason that online companies are not directly liable for the users’ contents that they are a kind of neutral publisher? When this “neutral” falls flat, aren’t they publishing their opinion, and would have to carry responsibility for that?
It’s our only way out.
If you know what algorithmic complexity is, thousand servers might be as good as one, depending on purpose.
In this case I think global network is the problem. Mesh and offline applications like Briar are one of the solutions.
The AI push is really about buying up all the compute components to make independent, individual ownership impractical.
Then we all have to buy walled garden dumb terminal tablets that rely on cloud services to function.
They can watch, censor, and block anything they want. And we pay them for the privilege.
So you are telling me they gobble up everything to build data centers not because of AI hype (like the next industrial revolution) but… to make it more expensive for us? Do I understand this correct?
I think a large part is that if you have enough compute you can now log and analyze proactively every person’s online speech and activities.
the funny part about their plan is that everything will be centralized.
I wonder what the weakness of that strategy is? 🤔
Centralized systems are a failure point. Ask the Visagoths how well it worked.
For business decisions, always do things for more than one reason
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be posted.
We should‘ve never allowed the rich to take control of our biggest public spaces. Because social media is practically exactly that and censorship of any kind should not be allowed no matter who owns it.
never
15 000 years ago?
You see, when referring to a thing like ‘the existence of social media’, in English, the word ‘never’ constrains itself to the time frame of its existence. I know the ambiguity of the first sentence may have confused you, but you could’ve gleaned context from the second sentence.
Glad I could help.
