This is asklemmy. The point is to be able to ask questions. If you think a question is stupid, just move on. Besides, enough other people have replied to suggest that the question was worth asking.
In America, circumcision is common whether you’re Jewish or not. This isn’t necessarily a religious question. Avoid jumping to conclusions, especially when it involves implying that someone is a bigot.
Antisemitism is heinous, which means it’s also a very serious charge to make. Throwing the word “antisemitism” around based on such weak evidence only dilutes it.
That’s a good point. You’re entirely correct. I had a much simpler idea in mind - I was only thinking of small, independent artists who posted their images online and were the copyright holders of their own work.
Just try to set a good example. Name calling is not okay. If you disagree with something, be careful to argue against the idea, and don’t attack the person who posted it. (If it’s impossible to disagree with a post without attacking OP personally, just don’t reply at all.)
If something can be interpreted multiple ways, give people the benefit of the doubt. If you ask a question, make sure it’s not a loaded one, and try not to make any assumptions. Don’t be afraid to admit that you’re wrong or don’t know something. If you’re so invested in a topic that you can’t discuss it without losing your cool, feel free to skip the thread entirely. Apologize when it’s called for.
TL;DR do your bit to normalize civil discourse. That alone will encourage others to do the same.
People are allowed to be upset by racism even if the target doesn’t seem to care. The labor and image rights are also a major part of the story.
Besides, according to the article, Costello has been accused of shit like this before. I wouldn’t be so quick to say that the reporter decided to “invent the racist motivation”.
It’s an interesting question. To me, it only makes sense that AI companies should respect artist copyrights - especially since AIs purpose is to replace and minimize/eliminate the need for artists. On the other hand, licensing fees would quickly add up and be absolutely enormous. Only the biggest, wealthiest corporations (the ones we love to hate) could afford to invest in AI. Small, new companies won’t be able to afford it.
(Sorry if this is covered in the article. I haven’t read it yet. It’s late and I’m falling asleep!)
Edit: okay, now I’ve read it, and the situation is about as bad as I was expecting.
Meta’s argument that copyright holders wouldn’t get much money anyway makes me want to punch someone. It’s about respecting creators, not just money, you dipshits! Congrats on missing the point!
To balance things out, we’ve got Andreessen Horowitz crying “won’t someone please think about the billionaires?!?” That one made me laugh.
Adobe gets points for actually citing case law. I still don’t agree with their reasoning, but I appreciate the effort to keep the discussion professional.
From the title by itself, I was expecting a simple change to skin tone, which would have been bad enough. Reading the story and looking at the pic made me realize that things are much, much worse. What the FUCK.
So… China was okay with an exhibit on Genghis Kahn and the Mongol empire, as long as it didn’t contain the words “Genghis Khan”, “Mongol” or “empire”. Sure! That sounds sane, reasonable, and motivated purely by academic interests!
I think for many, ‘that’s just what we do’ is all the thought that goes into it.