lcnPylGDnU4H9OF

> I think you picked the cutoff (70) so that the numbers look worse than they are.

Reminds me of a point I heard about sports statistics. If a given team is reported as having "won 4 out of their last 7 matches", there are good odds that they also won 4 out of their last 8 matches. Also pretty good odds that their seventh-last match was a win, otherwise the stat would be 4 out of 6. (It could also go the reverse direction if the goal is to make it look worse than it is.)

I see the point (though I'd also say they're arguing it poorly, and that it's a departure from the point in their initial comments; note my comment is also not an endorsement of it). OP said that the LLM vendors should face legal problems for making the image, but the person they supplied it to was not tricked by its fraudulent nature, therefore the LLM vendor did not commit the fraud. Ostensibly, that is the dishonor of the person who prompted the model to create the fraudulent work.

Recall also that you wrote this here:

> People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong.

The context being that the "bad" person is such simply because they chose to break the law. Even if it doesn't match your thoughts, surely you can see how one might read your comments as both claiming that laws are not morals, and also that those who break the law made the "wrong" (moral) choice (put another way: laws are morals).

Breaking the law is not strictly a moral failure. It can be, but they have an "orthogonal" relationship. To that point:

> I did not say there was no injustice happening. Nor did I say that all laws are just.

Choosing to follow an unjust law is a moral failure. That moral failure is baked into the word "unjust". This blanket statement that the choice to commit a crime is a choice to be "bad" is not self-evident (or it's laughably tautological) and, regardless, is contradicted by the assertion that not all laws are "just".

Of course, one can assume you have more nuanced thoughts than that; the point of my coment is that you've not communicated that nuance here, so you appear to be contradicting yourself: saying both that laws are morals and that they are not morals.

> We'll make up more games.

This reminded me of something. https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football

That could alternatively be seen as a reason we should make employment less hostile to workers and encourage less car-centric city designs.

No clue what OP's intention was but I'll note that the software on object recognition cameras typically makes use of a vision model.

Not that surveillance capitalism is needed by society, but that surveillance capitalism needs privacy violations in order to thrive.

I believe what parent commenter is suggesting is that it would be ridiculous for lawmakers to call it a crime to die, say without verifying you are of the legal age to do so. It would be like declaring that breathing is legal: why does that need a proclamation?

> Explain how a privacy that protects you and me will somehow not protect a pedophile.

I think that it will, and that's okay. The US Bill of Rights necessarily protects criminals as well as innocents. "The optimal amount of [crime] is non-zero." (https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...)

> For whatever reason, I can't reply to your comment further down.

In case you happen to read this, that is (presumably) due to an anti-flamewar feature on HN, which hides the reply button for the first few minutes of posts in deep comment threads. You can either wait to comment, or comment by clicking the "X minutes ago" text next to the commenter's username.

This is a perfect example of a psychological projection. Your comment describes itself.

I see what you're saying but it strikes me as naive to suggest that a felony and misdemeanor are different merely in magnitude. I suppose that was my mistake given my initial examples. In practical terms, one is a means of voter disenfranchisement, among many other life complications like "failing" employer and landlord background checks. One thing being a felony and the other being a misdemeanor can be seen as a difference in magnitude and as a difference in kind, and I was talking about the latter.

Then you don't see why stealing $10 is a misdemeanor and stealing $1000 is a felony (depending on jurisdiction, but whatever you get the point). Not saying you should see why, just that many clearly do for it to be public policy.

But it makes me wonder: do you think the $10 theft should be punished more heavily (minimum 1 year in prison), or the $1000 theft punished more lightly (maximum 1 year in prison)?

This "they did bad stuff so we have to do worse stuff" idea strips the people doing the second bad thing of their agency. That's false; they have agency, and can choose to do better.

> perjurative

Just nitpicking, the word is "pejorative". Kind of a funny mix-up in context, though. (Perjurative would be related to lying under oath.)

That is not inconsistent with a belief that violence against a person is worse than violence against property. It is odd to compare kidnapping a person with destroying their home security cameras.

> Police in Union Township, a Cincinnati suburb, accused Cody Morelock of disassembling the camera, its support pole and solar panel on June 13.

To add to this, it stood out to me that the headline uses "destroy" but the article uses "disassemble" to describe what happened. Not that the act of calmly dissasembling something couldn't be indicted as potentially criminal (if a ham sandwich can be), but it stands out regardless. Maybe he literally just walked up and started unscrewing things. That would be the most civil form of "vandalism" I can imagine; force them to (pay someone to) come set it up again until they give up or try something else.

> or that someone who would not authorize something like this would literally not be allowed to show up on the ballot?

I'm surprised that you've never encountered this persepective before, it seems a very common one to me.

The first thing I think about is the South Park episode in which the elementary school had to vote for a school mascot and they were given the choice of either "a giant douche" or "a turd sandwich".

The second thing is another South Park episode (circa 2009), for which they actually produced two episodes (and aired one) for the Presidential election between McCain and Obama. Regardless of who would win, the plot was the same: the winner colludes with the loser in a National Treasure-style heist, with the election just being part of the setup.

In the latter example, the message seems to be that it doesn't matter who wins because the same outcomes occur. The former example probably doesn't need explaining.

Anyway, yeah, it would be nice to choose something better than a turd sandwich but when the other option is a giant douche, what is there to do? The way I see it, you either vote for someone who you know stands no chance (Jill Stein, btw), don't vote at all, or vote for the turd sandwich (or the giant douche, if that's your persuasion).

> "Censorship of government websites" is an oxymoron.

> The government choosing not to engage in or endorse certain speech does not suppress others engaging in that speech.

The second sentence is not related to what I'm saying. I'm responding to the notion that government resources can't be censored.

> What is your argument here?

There is no argument, but an observation: government resources can be censored. I'm not going to insult you by copying a definition of "censor" and explaining how it is possible to apply that action to government documents. You're smart enough to figure that out on your own.

Another alternative could be implementing reasonable and toothy checks on corporate malfeasance like price fixing, rent-seeking, wage theft, and wage suppression such that the lower class can actually afford to live in society.

Your refusal to look up "censor" in a dictionary doesn't make you right. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned discussion about the downsides of what the administration is doing, in particular the censorship, which is the problem with articles like this being flagged, especially when it's justified with partisan hyperbole such as what can be found in your comments here.

That's why it's mind boggling that you are insisting something so dubious is obvious. The certainty with which you believe this conclusion speaks more to your personal biases than what can be objectively observed in the video.

It's possible both things occurred, first one, then the other.

Yeah, I get it but always prefer to give it a shot. I know the person I'm replying to is not the only one who will read my comments. Cheers.

> Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply

It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up.

> The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested.

This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never said people can't replace it with other means to do what Facebook currently does for them, just that they apparently don't want to, as revealed by their use of Facebook for the doings in question. If you still think that's wrong, please point me to the passage in their comment which contradicts it, because I am failing to find it.

> I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise.

Funny. I now wonder if I'm going to be dismissed as a sock puppet.

To add to this, government-run services can't absolve themselves of all wrongdoing with Terms of Service they can change on a whim. Censorship within government-run social media is subject to the restrictions placed on the government's control of speech.

(Technically, the terms are still there but they're called Titles and Statutes and other things that require a bunch of ceremony and agreement to change, not just an email.)

The point you are raising is a non sequitur to theirs. The fact that you can do these things without Facebook is not mutually exclusive with others using Facebook with the same intentions.

First, pay people for the "engagement" their content generates, then aggressively promote the most "engaging" content. At the same time, such content is known to have certain characteristics. This is the Facebook (et al.) commissioning model.

Rage-bait invented the "culture war" you're talking about.

This is a really funny way to describe Facebook's (and Youtube's, and TikTok's, and...) entire business model. It's long been known that they aggressively promote ahem "engaging" content. How do they incentivize people to make it? Ad revenue!