audaxdreik

Other backers include OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

WTF, no, this is worse in every way. So instead of being involved with the people and topics I choose, it's instead left up to an algorithm? Somehow even more opaque than usual because of AI involvement.

This isn't solving any problem, this is yet another mask to push content in front of people.

Is it actually finding new stuff, though? Or just refining classification methods to better identify what we already had lying around?

One of my favorite examples of this was playing The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure on the Gamecube back in they day. Me and a friend were really into it, but had trouble rounding up extra players. We got his little sister and an unwilling third friend to join. After about 30 minutes the unwilling friend, Marcus, gets bored with the game and starts sabotaging the rest of us. He'd run around smacking us with his sword making us drop rupees or refuse to stand where we needed him. That's honestly when it became fun for all of us, though.

The other three of us would plan out the room and then we'd figure out how to wrangle Marcus back into place. Someone would hold him so he couldn't go rogue and hit us while the others got in place to pull some levers before the wrangler would toss Marcus onto a pressure plate or something. He got to continue being a little bastard while we (slowly) made progress through the game. He eventually came around and helped us when it was absolutely necessary, but it was always clear it was just so he could keep being a bastard again. I really enjoy that asymmetrical style of gameplay and wish more things capitalized on it.

Also on the Gamecube of notable mention was Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Always fun when someone would get the personal mission of "take the most damage" and become a suicidal maniac in every encounter, much to everyone else's detriment. Ah the good old days.

But if I give them one of my nickels, what will I rub the other one against?

Thank you, that's good clarification on what the actual motivations are here. Was having trouble following all the threads and sussing it out myself. Appreciate it.

Am I missing something obvious here? What is motivating such stringent measures to be put in place when things have been sufficient without them thus far? Who is asking for this?

I live in my own little online echo chambers, but even I can't believe there's enough ground swell for the government to step in on ... What? Violence? Addiction? This is very confusing.

Not gonna lie, that still felt a little dirty. But I already posted it to the internet and there's no going backsies.

Everything is tweets now, on all platforms; hear me out.

It might sound lazy, and I certainly have no loyalty to the Twitter brand, but if Musk isn't going to defend it we have the opportunity to dilute and generalize the term (like zipper or band-aid). We can kill it dead AND reclaim it.

It's a good word! Short, sweet, has familiarity, and is honestly pretty descriptive for the simple bird-like chatter of the discourse. Everything else proposed sounds dumb as hell, not to mention you're doing the marketing for them. Don't sell their brands - suffocate them!

Sorry, yes, still trying to wrap my head around it. It's one of those things where there is quite obviously no direct benefit for the user. The company is trying to sell it as improving their content, moderation, security, etc. which may have indirect, knock-on effects for the end user but whether that would even be true or if it would be perceptible to your average person is MUCH more questionable.

It's the same kind of thing when you see people defending exclusivity on consoles. I mean sure, it helps prop up your favorite company/developer in hopes that the market benefit may someday come back around and help them to produce more content/games that you like, but people seriously need to start looking out after their own self interests first and corporations be damned. They earn money by providing actual value, don't ever argue against yourself.

Maybe somebody can do a better job of boiling this down than I can.

Basically, right now, if you ask for something on the internet, it gets served to you. Sure there are lots of server side protections that may require an account to log in to access things or what have you, but still you can at least request something from a server and get some sort of response in return.

What this does is force attestation through a third party. I can ask for something from a server and the server turns to the attester and goes, "Hey, should I give this guy what he's asking for?" and the attester can say "No" for whatever reasons it might. Or worse yet, I can get the attestation but the server can then decide based in turn that it doesn't like me having that attestation and I get nothing.

You can make arguments that this would be good and useful, but it's so easy to see how this could go sideways and nobody with any sense should be taking Google or any of these large corporations at their word.