WhatsTheHoldup @ WhatsTheHoldup @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

221

Joined

4 mo. ago

Yea not serious.

Authority means force.

Your dentist does not have the ability, to force you to do anything. They are an "authority" in the sense they know a lot about teeth so we willingly ask them for help.

That is clearly not the same type of authority being discussed in authoritarianism.

Stop comparing Hitler to your dentist.

I think that's a bit of a false dichotomy.

I never intended to imply you only have to consider this one thing, but I think if a good faith comment exists, it's one that respects the human on the other side of the screen they're talking to and assumes good intent.

As human beings in good faith we give the benefit of the doubt and when someone crosses that line well then we do the calculus on how to respond without being a pushover

I would agree with you there are certain bad faith comments out there that aren't worth responding to in good faith and that's the scenario OP was trying to point out.

What? Take the discussion seriously.

We don't confer power to them. I am the authority and I consent to the dentist cleaning my teeth but the second I say "no" their ability to operate is taken away.

Try telling "no" to a cop trying to arrest you.

A dentist has no authority over you. If you choose not to brush your teeth they can't force you to, they can't do dental work unless you willingly seek them put and consent.

A plumber has not authority to enter your home or mess with your plumbing unless you invite them in.

You're misusing the word "authority" and applying it out of context.

Given what you said, how do we make headway in shaping opinions publicly by disengaging and allowing their opinions to freely go uncontested

To engage you'd have to go into those public spaces, go back to reddit, YouTube comment sections, Facebook groups, etc.

If online debate is a waste of time, why are the just powerful and richest people investing in shaping it while you tell others to disengage

Because the powerful and richest have more money and power than you do.

If you're interested in shaping public opinion I think you need to ask yourself why you are on Lemmy instead of somewhere else?

The intent is to get the message to those not yet brainwashed

You can still directly and genuinely rebut their dumbassery.

I know the idiot won't be swayed by the truth

You aren't talking about "good faith" comments.

You're imagining someone has already made a bad faith comment and you now have justification to be bad faith in return.

It's a "motte" FYI

It's not about convincing the person toy are directly opposing. It's about getting the counter arguments in a bigger forum so less brainwashed people might be able to avoid getting brainwashed.

I would describe this as the epitome of "bad faith" commenting.

You are not replying to their actual comment, you are grandstanding to the echo chamber.

I fully agree.

I think that the way in which we ask those questions is also very important.

They make a good case these tests are exploiting the political climate and illegally targeting minors to make themselves money.

I believe we do this conversation a disservice if we prejudge researchers and jump to conclusions too early when they point out this relationship might be inappropriate.

Nope, but that is an entirely different problem.

Is it? In your last comment you had said?

Also, a depression test? Some people certainly would benefit from knowing that a) no, showing these symptoms is neither normal nor healthy, and b) there can be something done against this.

If you acknowledge that the "depression tests" which show up in targetted ads are not reliable, then I think we both realize a) and b) are not the goals of these tests. Making money is.

So people actually wouldn't benefit from seeing this, it might actually harm them by giving a bad impression and push them away from legitimate mental health professionals.

This is some weird ass fanfic you are writing about me for asking how the researchers came to their conclusions about LGBT ads, specifically, being judged to be inappropriate.

I'm also asking how the researchers came to their conclusions on what is and isn't appropriate. Neither of us have the answer.

Beyond that you don't seem to understand that an "are you gay?" test illegally targetted to children with the intent of stealing their data is much more likely to be hate speech than an "LGBT ad".

You're giving a lot of benefit of the doubt towards an online quiz breaking the law, psychologically manipulating and illegally targeting children, and barely any benefit of the doubt to scientific researchers and that bias seems really odd to me.

This thread seems scarily naive for people who are technically knowledgeable enough to be on lemmy.

depression test? Some people certainly would benefit from knowing that a) no, showing these symptoms is neither normal nor healthy, and b) there can be something done against this.

Yes, someone depressed absolutely could benefit from a psychologically administered depression test.

Do you know what they absolutely would not benefit from? A targetted ad directed at them because analytics flagged them as vulnerable which under the guise of the "depression test" gets them to enter a bunch of personal information which they sell to a bunch of spam companies so said depressed person is now getting woken up at 3 am to 30 spam calls.

And now better help is being spammed to you all over YouTube and ads and instead of going to a reputable therapist you get yourself scammed and don't actually get the real therapist who can help.

Do you genuinely think reliable medical tests are being targeted at you through ads?

You’re classifying all of these as malicious by virtue of being ads, which the researchers obviously didn’t. Take that up with them.

I think you misunderstood the researchers. Quoting the article:

In terms of data protection, tracking is a gray area. “It actually involves psychological manipulation, because the online behavior of users is exploited to attract them with targeted advertising,” points out the Bochum-based researcher.

It appears as though the researchers in the article are the ones painting all targeted ads as inherently malicious, involving psychological manipulation.

Seventy-three percent of the ads that were analyzed used tracking. Generally, users only consent to this practice if they accept optional cookies. However, according to Article 8 of the General Data Protection Regulation, children cannot give valid consent; the parent should give consent instead.

Which is 73% of them. This is already supposed to be illegal.

“Technically, laws do exist that regulate which ads children may and may not be exposed to,” stresses Veelasha Moonsamy. “But they are not being complied with.” This is because, from a technical point of view, there’s no difference between websites designed for children and websites designed for adults.

As children are especially vulnerable to manipulation, there seems to be a correct moral stance and it's not "advertisers should be free to psychologically manipulate children".

It comes across like you feel we can't protect gay/minority children from being exploited by huge corporations online because it would be homophobic to protect gay kids from psychological manipulation.

I question the idea that the reason these were classified as inappropriate was because of sexual pop ups. If that was the case than many innocuous sites with crappy ad practices would have also made it onto the list.

The researchers didn't classify anything as inappropriate based on pop up ads. That was me explaining to you how they work.

The ad pages have links on them to other ad pages so it's all one big beast and in action clicking on a gay test could lead to an overtly sexual one or vice versa. Sometimes they both open at the same time in different tabs.

The article explains the researchers downloaded the ads offline and so didn't interact with them through normal means.

In the next step, the researchers downloaded the ads from these websites, accumulating approximately 70,000 files in total. This was partly because many pages contained several banner ads and partly because the researchers visited each page several times.

So it's a combo of pop ups and banner ads.

Knowing that queer people exist and that you could be queer isn’t “sexual advertisement,” by the way.

Yeah.. obviously I agree that a PSA on gay rights and an "are you gay?" test are not the same thing.

Letting the wider public know queer people exist, and then using psychological manipulation to (illegally remember) target gay children and try to exploit their vulnerabilities are two hugely different things.

The PSA is protecting gay kids, the spam test is attacking them.

What is your point?

Which is why I wanted to know more about how the researchers came to the conclusion that these particular ads were inappropriate.

Fair question, I'd like to know also. But while raising the question you assumed ill intent and were questioning their biases.

The pool that the researchers analyzed contained 1,003 inappropriate ads. Their content ranged from ads for engagement rings and racy underwear to weight loss drugs, dating platforms and tests for homosexuality and depression, as well as sex toys and invitations to chat with women in suggestive clothing and poses.

All it says is that it's considered inappropriate.

Ads for engagement rings being listed along the "are you gay?" tests shows me that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are being treated more or less equally here. Engagement rings aren't particularly inappropriate except that they're used for marriage.

Psychologically manipulating children using the most vulnerable groups as clickbait to try to get them to enter personal information is wrong and children haven't developed their brains enough to protect them.

These aren't tests made by queer people to promote innocuous queer products. These are tests made by soulless capitalists trying to exploit insecurity to make them money.

Why should these companies have a right to exploit the insecurities of young kids?

It's not homophobic to prevent minorities from being manipulated.

Adding an “are you gay?” quiz to the list of inappropriate ads shown to children immediately makes me question the researcher biases and methodology.

Now I'm questioning your biases.

There's nothing wrong or inappropriate with discussing sexuality/homosexuality with your kids but it absolutely is inappropriate for advertisers to try to target children's insecurities with "are you gay?" tests.

And these are not actual "tests". They're malware. You click on the "test" and a million porn pop ups will open and it starts asking for your email and phone number.

Kids should not be exposed to these. Hell, adults shouldn't even be.

I don't think spam pop ups need you defending its right to scam children.

How many ads related to heterosexuality were classified as appropriate?

All of them I'd hope. Those gross underwear ads, porn ads, etc. Kids should not be exposed to sexual advertisements over the internet.

It seems like you're trying to pull a narrative out of thin air to imply the researchers are homophobic?

Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.

I'm lost as to why you are citing this.

This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.

Nobody throughout this thread is using specific jargon from the field of statistical physics.

We're simply discussing what the word "wet" means. I am not interested in your niche scientific subchapter on "wetting" in a 1951 theoretical physics textbook.

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

What that wikipedia article is explaining is that if you are interested in the meaning of a word and not just factual information about it, an encyclopedia (wikipedia) entry is the wrong place to look because "unlike a dictionary", it's not focused on the meaning of words.

What? I legit don't understand what you're trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that's the be-all, end-all of definitions.

Uh, you linked it. Thats your source. I just used it because you linked it as a source you trust?

You accidentally linked "wetting", but if you look at link you sent and go to the top of the page where it says

For other uses of 'Wet', see Wet (disambiguation)

And then click that and you'll see

Look up wet, wetness, or wetting in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

It's literally just 2 clicks inside the source you linked as the end-all, be-all lmao.

You're right, I wouldn't have just linked a dictionary entry as a thought ending cliche until you tried to and I showed you what your own source was saying about it.

This is entirely correct, and it's deeply troubling seeing the general public use LLMs for confirmation bias because they don't understand anything about them.

People aren't interested in "learning about LLMs", especially people like artists.

They're interested in telling Elon Musk to "fuck off", and when Grok says something bad about Elon it's very cathartic for them.

They might know it's feeding their own thoughts back to them, but they don't care. To people who aren't in the know, this box Elon is promoting as "objective truth box" is criticizing Elon. That's a very powerful narrative in a world where he's taking over the world.

It's hard to disagree. Elon can go fuck himself. What's more important to the average person, stopping Elon or understanding the nitty gritty of machine learning?

When artists say AI is stealing, they're not interested in an explanation about how "its really not". And if you tried to, they'd feel you're missing the forest for the trees because their problem with AI isn't metaphysical philosophy, it's that it's hurting their job opportunities.

This might just be me, but I'll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence.

What you're calling "a physical definition with sources" would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software MediaWiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

In other words, it's just you.

But the meaning of words is fluid,

So then what are we arguing about? In common definition, as in the dictionary example from the source you i guess now regret linking, water is wet.

If you choose to define "wet" differently or in specific scientific contexts maybe water isn't wet.

It's not "bad" but it can make you feel sad inside. All those commenter are trying to essentially say "I found this funny", but they're never saying anything genuine. Its always a repetitive joke or a meme that you see a thousand times.

Instead of seeing a bunch of different people and diverse reasons people "find a joke funny" they all start to melt into the same person and it expands on this loneliness where all this human interaction is at the tip of our fingers, but only the surface level of ideas can be expressed.

the streaming leader announced that it has created interactive mid-roll ads and pause ads that incorporate generative AI.

That's the wikipedia entry for wetting.

This is the definition of wet:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet#English

Adjective

wet (comparative wetter, superlative wettest)

1. Made up of liquid or moisture, usually (but not always) water.

Synonym: wetting

Water is wet.