Everything that comes out of his mouth is beneath the office.
When he says something awful like this, though, I figure there is probably another story that he's trying to bury with manufactured outrage. I suspect Fox is on board and is with amplifying the non-news item to bury the real news item.
I wouldn't normally say this but it seems warranted in a thread about "Factism". Trump did not win over 50% of the popular vote. He won with 49.8% in 2024 and 46.1% in 2016.
Before I say this, ICE is awful and driving without a license shouldn't be a deportable offense. Also, military service should give automatic citizenship.
I feel like this article is leaving something out. How did ICE get involved in this? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if they got involved simply because they saw a record of a non-citizen getting arrested but I'm wondering if he didn't renew his green card or something.
I'm not arguing that this guy deserves to be deported (I think he should be a citizen) but I do wish we got the whole story on things.
Edit: Apparently it helps to read the full comment and not let your ADHD brain skip the middle part thst gives all of the relevant context. Shit...
How about we throw all of these fucks in prison regardless of political party? Why are you trying to muddy this with politics? I wouldn't care if it was Trump or if it was Bert and Ernie, anyone involved should be prosecuted.
Oh no! Bill Gates, another asshole billionaire is in the files? Throw him in the same dark hole as the rest of them.
Bill Clinton? Yeah, throw him in, too.
Hillary was aware and said nothing? Prison.
Barack Obama had evidence of ongoing abuse and did nothing? Believe it or not, prison.
Bernie Sanders was on the island? Yeah, prison for him, too.
Fuck all of them and fuck politicizing this issue. Anyone involved should be prosecuted.
So far it does seem to be mostly republicans but I don't expect it will remain that way. If it does, I'll be skeptical that we're getting the whole truth.
For saying that they are unethical but that this article is not evidence of that I should be ashamed? This conclusions in this article would label everyone who develops ML models as unethical. How about we focus on the ways in which Flock is unethical rather than making non-issues into issues?
Flock is absolutely unethical but this is not evidence of that.
You should read about what ultra-processed means before spreading misinformation. In fact, ZERO of the examples you gave make something fall into the Nova "ultra-processed" classification. Each of those would place them in the category "processed".
Processed foods are relatively simple food products produced by adding processed culinary ingredients (group 2 substances) such as salt or sugar to unprocessed (group 1) foods.
Processed foods are made or preserved through baking, boiling, canning, bottling, and non-alcoholic fermentation. They often use additives to enhance shelf life, protect the properties of unprocessed food, prevent the spread of microorganisms, or make them more enjoyable.
Examples include cheese, canned vegetables, salted nuts, fruits in syrup, and dried or canned fish. Breads, pastries, cakes, biscuits, snacks, and some meat products fall into this group when they are made predominantly from group 1 foods with the addition of group 2 ingredients.
I want to preface this by saying that I don't like Flock or what they do. I am not intending to call them "ethical". Below, I will say that this article gives no evidence that Flock is being unethical in THIS INSTANCE. I do think they do unethical things in other instances.
With that said, this is a non-story for anyone who understands how machine learning works. An ML or AI model is nothing more than a bunch of well-labeled data describing the phenomena you'd like to predict and a bunch of math that connects that data in interesting ways. If you want to "train" an ML or AI model, you must have a good, well-labeled training dataset. Something that the model can "learn" from.
The ONLY way to get a large, well-labeled dataset is to have a bunch of humans look at a lot of data and annotate it to say what is in it. It is possible to do this in an ethical way by anonymizing data and feeding it to the annotators in unconnected ways. They may or may not be doing this ethically but the article gives no evidence either way.
Unlike Amazon, with their cashier-less stores, this doesn't accuse Flock of using human labor to look at real, live data. They aren't being accused of being an "AI" model composed of inexpensive labor. They are being accused of doing what every ML or AI model builder does; using human labor to label training data for their model. This is the same for corporate models (which tend to use employees or gig workers) as it is for academic models (which tend to use graduate students).
Flock is unethical in other ways but this is just how the ML and AI sausages are made.
I honestly think that if that were to happen we would end up in a much worse situation. He would become a martyr and the republicans who are starting to see the light would go rage blind.
I agree with you. The problem is that lawsuits cost money. Fighting the company on this requires the right plaintiff who is willing to risk money on the problem.
I agree with you that this should be illegal. I expect this was in the terms of service, though. Since we have no laws restricting this kind of bullshit, the company can argue that they're within their rights.
We need some real legislation around privacy. It's never going to happen, but it needs to. We need a right to anonymity but that is too scary for advertisers and our police state.
Everything that comes out of his mouth is beneath the office.
When he says something awful like this, though, I figure there is probably another story that he's trying to bury with manufactured outrage. I suspect Fox is on board and is with amplifying the non-news item to bury the real news item.