Alloi

more like reclamation of data. if anything.

no no, i mean not sufficient in the way that cant handle voice and video calls with a stable connection between multiple people.

we wanted a discord alternative that allowed us most or all of the features of discord for our DnD campaigns and streaming to one another. it just wasnt stable for more than two or three people. let alone five lol.

not dissing it though, light tools always have their place. its just difficult enough trying to explain to a passive group of 30+ year olds that discord is the devil and we need to own the means of communication without offering a smooth(ish) transition process with similar quality and features.

i like how light it is, but its just not sufficient for a 5 person DnD/gaming group like mine.

be the change you wish to see in the world.

now is the perfect time to assist in this developing landscape and make into something we can actually call our own.

dont use it for anything remotely creative or human centric. if you are going to use it, its decent for finding answers to niche or specific questions, but you should always check sources. keep it minimal. and use free versions.

its not a public service, yet. and its main objective is to learn as much as possible about us. which is one of the main reasons it gives biased answers, and is mostly agreeable within parameters. to keep you engaged so it can farm you for information.

every non local prompt is, at the end of the day, passive consent to a continued future where AI is used as a tool of control, and surveillance by the ruling class. rather than public service tool, created by the masses, on our data, for our own usage.

we must seize the means of production, comrades. it was built by us, it should belong to us. like the internet that we populate, it should be free and open to all, without worry of the bourgeoisie agenda

R1 last i checked seems to be decent enough for a local model. customizable. but that was a while ago. its release temporarily crashed Nvidia stock because they showed how smart software design trumps mass spending on cutting edge hardware.

at the end of the day its all of our data. we should own the means, especially if we built it by simply existing on the internet. without consent.

if we wish to do this, its crucial that we do everything in our power to dismantle the "profit" structure and investment hype. sooner or later someone will leak the data, and we will have access to locally run versions we can train ourselves. as long as we dont allow them to monopolize hardware, we can have the brain, and the body of it run local.

thats the only time it will be remotely ethical to use, unless its the persuit of attaining these goals.

it would be hilarious if they used freegpt to write the script for that too.

"im beyond space and time" is my new favourite.

Matrix + Element.

It’s open source, decentralized (federated), supports voice/video, roles, persistent rooms, and you can self-host if you want full control. It’s basically the only thing that feels like a real discord replacement without being locked into one company’s servers.

kind of missing the forest for the trees here. the issue is in order to make that change and hold these platforms accountable, through changes to section 230, you would then open the door to all platforms being held accountable, and create a new loop hole for more government control of all platforms. this would cause intense censorship and algorithmic control of content, and the means in which it is shared, spread, or created.

the internet is inherently addictive, always has been, always will be. its the greatest technology mankind has ever developed, it connects us all to each other, and the collective library of human knowledge. there is no world where a human brain, adult, or child, does not engage with that level of connectivity without some level of addiction.

ive been watching this for a while now, and the support, timing, and language around it is being engaged by both sides of the political spectrum. which in this particular time period, is extremelly worrisome.

attacking "addictive features" (which i am not saying there isnt room for improvement for) is a foot in the door for further amendments. most people just "think of the chillren" when they see this, and its understandable, we love our kids, so we should as parents limit screen time, or not make it an option at all, kids cant buy their own phines, computers, or pay for wifi, and it takes a few minutes to put parental controls on all your kids devices. besides that, most people are not educated in the subject of internet policy over the last 30 years, or why section 230 is so important. it is quite literally the reason you and i can have this exchange without the government filtering what can and cannot be exchanged.

the fact of the matter is right in the paragraph you quoted

This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies' First Amendment shield and Section 230

its not just about the companies, its about section 230, and as a biproduct digital ID requirements by large platforms. which is something needed for a larger agenda that goes beyond the united states government, by the ruling elites of the world. but thats a rabbit hole ill allow you to fall in yourself. the united states just so happens to be the center of digital infrastructure and platforms shared by every country in the planet.

discord, as an example, will soon require users to upload a copy of their ID or a facial scan to use their platform.

"to protect the children"

then every major platform will. for "liability reasons" and to "protect the children"

then the internet as a whole will require it.

"to protect the children"

then you wont be able to do a god damn thing without big brother logging and arresting people left and right for whatever digital crimes the powers that be decide are crimes that week. basically, thought crime.

and platforms from the fediverse, and all over the internet will have to bend the knee, and police content to extremes we havent yet seen. nobody will be anonymous anymore. and resistance goes back to the stone age of hand written letters and secret handshakes under the bridge.

heres a good write up about section 230. the above mentioned article already discusses some of the pushes for digital ID already. in various forms. some more invasive than others.

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2026/02/30-years-of-section-230-why-we-still-need-it-for-a-safer-internet/

heres a decent video about the history of the internet, section 230, and implications of this lawsuit and the other actions around section 230. its a bit long, but worth it. if you want a laymans understanding.

https://youtu.be/_eqt8vrtP-U

and below, here is a summary of section 230 from wikipedia.

Summary In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by their users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the voluntary good faith removal or moderation of third-party material the operator "considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against online discussion platforms in the early 1990s that resulted in different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., or alternatively, as distributors of content created by their users, Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. The section's authors, Representatives Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden, believed interactive computer services should be treated as distributors, not liable for the content they distributed, as a means to protect the growing Internet at the time.

Section 230 was enacted as section 509 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996). After passage of the Telecommunications Act, the CDA was challenged in courts and was ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) to be unconstitutional, though Section 230 was determined to be severable from the rest of the legislation and remained in place. Since then, several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230.

Section 230 protections are not limitless and require providers to remove material that violates federal criminal law, intellectual property law, or human trafficking law. In 2018, Section 230 was amended by the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA-SESTA) to require the removal of material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws. In the following years, protections from Section 230 have come under more scrutiny on issues related to hate speech and ideological biases in relation to the power that technology companies can hold on political discussions and became a major issue during the 2020 United States presidential election, especially with regard to alleged censorship of more conservative viewpoints on social media.

Passed when Internet use was just starting to expand in both breadth of services and range of consumers in the United States, Section 230 has frequently been referred to as a key law, which allowed the Internet to develop.

there.

i did my part.

now i must rest.

"yea, ive been craving burgers too......FUR burgers"

not me, i just assume you think im a special lil guy

removing or changing section 230 would also allow lemmy instances to be sued or taken down as well, for the content posted by users. it would increase government surveillance and basically allow the american government to dictate content across the entire internet. no more freedom of speech, whistleblowers, organization of protests, etc.

this all sounds well and good "for the sake of the chillren" but its a trojan horse for government censorship.

the only people who would be able to afford the bill for what happens after this would be american social media companies. anything "independant" or emerging like the fediverse would get bot swarmed with "illegal content" and then immediately sued into oblivion and outright removed.

this ensures complete loyalty of the digital space to the whims of the american government.

it would also allow them to remove things like wikipedia, the way back machine, the internet archive, and sites holding or spreading things around like the epstein files or at least sites holding peoples opinions of them.

thought i wrote this comment and forgot about it lol.

i think we may have a "canadian bacon" style drama played out in the political theatre of the world stage.

carney is a banker, and relatively rich one as well. whos used his station to stoke companies that we know hes involved with and invested in. and that have global oligarchs and billionairs involved, often with american origins.

i believe its all just a show, coke and pepsi, same company. the beurgeois look out for each other, and they own the media, so the story we get is the one they want us to hear.

using fear of american invasion or economic annexation has given the ruling class a blank cheque, and they seem to be using it to do the opposite of what they claimed they would use it for.

fighting climate change, fighting fascism, authoritarianism, expanding social programs and lowering the price of housing, groceries, etc.

they placate us with crumbs and claim its a feast, a payment here, a "working class tax cut" there. but in the end all it does is enrich the private entities its supposed to combat.

its all bullshit. its all a show. and the majority of people are too caught up in the headlines and clickbait titles to actually read the oldest and most consistent subtext.

the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. they distract us with bread and circus and hate for our fellow man. sowing division and fear, only to increase their chokehold on the people.

the best thing a leftist has to say about carney is that he isnt pierre poilievre. but he conveniently came at a time where the left was desperate for options, and the media sold him as our "trump card" and this is what we get..... a literal conservative, passing himself off as a liberal, the only difference being that he "supports LGBTQ rights" because its politically convenient for him to do so. if it wasnt, then he wouldnt.

all we got so far is more pipelines, an LNG plant, and laws that reduce the power of the people, and incresse the police/surveillance state. "for our safety". and a separatist movement who carney seems to ignore the treasonous implications and leadership by his new pipeline buddy, danielle smith.

and most of the new infrastructure built for these oil projects will be paid for publicly, but owned privately. and in part owned by large multinational companies, some with american origins.

counter intuitive to say the least.

its all bullshit.

the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

the fact is, canada has no gold reserves, its main source of reserve currency is USD, US treasury bonds....fucking petrodollars....

if the US fails. we go down with them.

we arent fighting shit. they are integrating us into a future run by anarcho capitalists and techno feudalists.

nazis literally based the design of the holocaust on the american genocides and reservation system.

they taught the nazis how to nazi.

they just arent as subtle about it anymore.

"real world"

apparantly the stock market is more real than a fascist paramilitary force kidnapping, torturing, raping, and killing immigrants and US citizens, for which this was ,in part, a protest against.

can yall shoot this fuckin pedophile already?

theres always a choice, it just depends on how much you are willing to sacrifice for it.

i..... present you with.....a choice.....comrade.....

but how will i post about how revolutionary i am???

Alloi

@ Alloi @lemmy.world

Posts

2
Comments

432
Joined

12 mo. ago

Alloi

A “QuitGPT” campaign is urging people to cancel their ChatGPT subscriptions

Me while waiting for a passable alternative

Me while waiting for a passable alternative

Me while waiting for a passable alternative

A “QuitGPT” campaign is urging people to cancel their ChatGPT subscriptions

A “QuitGPT” campaign is urging people to cancel their ChatGPT subscriptions

A “QuitGPT” campaign is urging people to cancel their ChatGPT subscriptions

Unemployed?

Me while waiting for a passable alternative

Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins

I love pie

Another one for today

Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins

Canada discreetly puts money down on 14 additional F-35s

The (rule) realisation

halftime show meme

BASED?

BASED?

Discord will restrict your account next month unless you scan ID or face

Hrmmm

question about gaming distros

"Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional