rickety-gherkin

Assuming that the information would be behind at least a password entrance that a user had setup, Amazon breaking through that would be considered illegal unless they had a court order or something. They can peer into metadata that your machine creates but I think looking at private information on a server that they lease out would be illegal. Maybe I'm just hopeful?

I think the club analogy here is spot-on. From what I've seen of TikTok, if you're classically attractive then you're famous on there, and it drives the wants and trends of TikTok. A userbase that is infatuated with crushes. It's no different than any teen magazine from the 90s. I have an ignore-worthy conspiracy about this app, stop reading here if are you have a distaste for this.

I think it's used as a staging environment to test mass human interactions with computer generated videos of people in a setting where there isn't pre-loaded skepticism and where the sample sets are extremely good. Mass amounts of people doing the same dance is a pretty good data set, and the information in this article makes me believe this even more. They are effectively "cleaning" the data so the sample set is attractive people in clean and presentable homes or areas with good lighting, all confined to the "For your page" stream. Might not be true, but it's a fun thought.

A couple things I'm confused about here. Was NYU monetizing this video? Is that where the grounds for dispute are? If that's true, would demonetizing the video clear out the disputes? Even though this clearly falls under fair use, it's still something that was unclear to me.

I'm surprised there's not a serious case against Youtube/Google for denying people the right to Fair Use. Is this because people don't have to use Youtube? Is this in the Youtube contract somewhere? Is it because Fair Use doesn't work like that? If you provide a platform like Youtube for people to use, are you not held legally responsible for protecting Fair Use laws the same way you'd be held liable for copyright infringement if you didn't give corporations/people the ability to dispute?

If Youtube allowed all videos to exist regardless of copyright infringement, and didn't lay out any paths for claims, would they be in legal trouble? Is this not the same as automatically removing obvious Fair Use content?

US political and militarized forces protecting corporate interest for the sake of...what again? Upholding ridiculous IP law?

Is it naive to think that IP law should be disintegrated? How would the world, and more specifically the digital landscape, look if there was no concept of IP.

I think because it's an everyday commuter line. Unfortunately there are really limited options but I do know a few people that make the commute.

My first thought was that this was a setup by the Script Kiddie (maybe they did know what they were doing). If you knew that your actions were going to come to light then you might as well messy up the trail for investigators. I wouldn't be surprised to find out this was a planned maneuver

you can find the option in FF in about:config by searching "prefetch", but mine was also disabled already because of uBlock origin.