I see this from two perspectives: Great! Get AI companies used to the idea of paying for training data. More and more platforms have become so insufferable to deal with that functionality- and...
I see this from two perspectives:
Great! Get AI companies used to the idea of paying for training data.
More and more platforms have become so insufferable to deal with that functionality- and privacy-oriented frontends like Nitter, Redlib, and Invidious have been brought to light. These tools are largely dependent on scraping, and effective anti-scraping tech renders them useless. Please don't make me sign up for an X account to view someone's linked tweet.
Whoever runs the local emergency system in my area (like that pushes amber alerts to phones) sends out x links. Since I'm not signing up for x I basically just don't get to see them unless I'm...
Whoever runs the local emergency system in my area (like that pushes amber alerts to phones) sends out x links. Since I'm not signing up for x I basically just don't get to see them unless I'm feeling so motivated as to use one of those kinds of services, so my expectation is that breaking such things even further just means I'll never see them at all.
My preference would just be that they stop sending out x links though. Governments shouldn't be driving traffic toward any social media businesses and should be running something in public interest instead.
I have not, though probably should. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's acceptable to just send out one random link to x. Presumably a policy holdover from when it made more sense than today, way...
I have not, though probably should. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's acceptable to just send out one random link to x. Presumably a policy holdover from when it made more sense than today, way back when you didn't need a login to view.
I highly recommend sending a friendly email explaining and requesting they at minimum mirror to bluesky! I've sent a few small requests like that to my city's communications department (which may...
I highly recommend sending a friendly email explaining and requesting they at minimum mirror to bluesky! I've sent a few small requests like that to my city's communications department (which may be one person, I'm not sure lol) and they're always very friendly about it
Instead, contact your local AARP and inform them that your technologically inept senior relative is having issues accessing vital safety alerts due to some millennial zoomer X Link that he doesn't...
Instead, contact your local AARP and inform them that your technologically inept senior relative is having issues accessing vital safety alerts due to some millennial zoomer X Link that he doesn't know how to work.
THEN write your city stating that you've already alerted special interest groups to combat their ageist policy of using X.
that depends on what your municipal government is like imo. my city is pretty liberal, if they're doing something like this badly it's because they are incompetent, not malicious. I'd rather...
that depends on what your municipal government is like imo. my city is pretty liberal, if they're doing something like this badly it's because they are incompetent, not malicious. I'd rather approach with kindness first
Please tell me that the messages have other options to view the notices than X links, and you're just complaining that they use X at all. If not, I second the suggestion to raise a complaint with...
Please tell me that the messages have other options to view the notices than X links, and you're just complaining that they use X at all. If not, I second the suggestion to raise a complaint with the city.
The best interpretation is that they hope people will retweet the notices and help spread them, in which case yeah, makes sense to keep sending the X links. X sucks for so many reasons, but spreading time-sensitive information takes priority in emergency situations. Someone might not be on the list for the emergency system, but follow someone on X who is and recognize the car or kids in the Amber Alert despite being multiple states away. It's best to post that information on multiple platforms, not just X, for maximum visibility.
But if that's the ONLY way to view the information? No. Official messages should not be gated behind having an account on a third-party website. They're totally behooven to the whims of that third party to distribute information, and X is particularly inconsistent and prone to changes because of Elon's whims. (And also breaking. I genuinely expect X won't gradually fade away, but something will break in a way that can't be fixed one day.)
There is definitely an annoying amount of increased friction of using simple web services these days, but my optimistic hope for the future is that it could turn out for the better. I already see...
There is definitely an annoying amount of increased friction of using simple web services these days, but my optimistic hope for the future is that it could turn out for the better. I already see a resurgence in the indieweb with small personal websites and blog as sort of a statement that everything on the web doesn't need a commercial purpose. While the increasing amount of paywalls is on the surface making the web less usable that it used to be, it can also foster a return for especially news and journalistic outlets to go back to strengthening their own brand and paying subscribers. I would rather see them make their product worth paying for for me as a subscriber, than the previous decades of chasing ad impression through clickbait. If that means we can't see a tweet on X without an account, I think the loss would be minimal.
While I do think it's great that AI companies shouldn't be taking someone else's content and selling them as their own, I'm wondering if this work is perhaps is going to have negative impact by...
While I do think it's great that AI companies shouldn't be taking someone else's content and selling them as their own, I'm wondering if this work is perhaps is going to have negative impact by creating bad incentives.
The article talks about content creators in absolute terms, as if all content they produce is valuable, but the ability to monetise tends to drive the quality of that content down as many see it as an opportunity to put the minimum effort possible and expect a payout. And that's assuming they're not using AI themselves to create that content, which could be hypocritical depending on how it's done.
Conversely, people being able to monetize their work makes it possible for them to sustainably produce good content. (Or bad. You can't have one without the other.) I have to say "making it...
Conversely, people being able to monetize their work makes it possible for them to sustainably produce good content. (Or bad. You can't have one without the other.)
I have to say "making it possible for independent content creators to make a living is bad, actually" isn't a take I expected to see on this article.
You read way too much into my comment if it's what you're referencing with your second sentence, mate. How am I saying that anyone making a living is bad? I'm saying the article made one big...
You read way too much into my comment if it's what you're referencing with your second sentence, mate. How am I saying that anyone making a living is bad? I'm saying the article made one big assumption and ran with it, and that the economic incentives may drive creation of slop. Quality creators should get paid fairly and should make a living producing content.
I don’t see that as a new or unique problem — that’s already incentivised by advertising today. If anything, I think this might lead to better outcomes because the target of advertising is real...
I don’t see that as a new or unique problem — that’s already incentivised by advertising today. If anything, I think this might lead to better outcomes because the target of advertising is real human attention, but if your business model is shaped to take advantage of this style of monetisation, then your target audience is bots and scrapers, and wasting the time of scrapers for money isn’t a big concern for me.
I see this from two perspectives:
Whoever runs the local emergency system in my area (like that pushes amber alerts to phones) sends out x links. Since I'm not signing up for x I basically just don't get to see them unless I'm feeling so motivated as to use one of those kinds of services, so my expectation is that breaking such things even further just means I'll never see them at all.
My preference would just be that they stop sending out x links though. Governments shouldn't be driving traffic toward any social media businesses and should be running something in public interest instead.
have you contacted your city to complain about it?
I have not, though probably should. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's acceptable to just send out one random link to x. Presumably a policy holdover from when it made more sense than today, way back when you didn't need a login to view.
I highly recommend sending a friendly email explaining and requesting they at minimum mirror to bluesky! I've sent a few small requests like that to my city's communications department (which may be one person, I'm not sure lol) and they're always very friendly about it
Instead, contact your local AARP and inform them that your technologically inept senior relative is having issues accessing vital safety alerts due to some millennial zoomer X Link that he doesn't know how to work.
THEN write your city stating that you've already alerted special interest groups to combat their ageist policy of using X.
that depends on what your municipal government is like imo. my city is pretty liberal, if they're doing something like this badly it's because they are incompetent, not malicious. I'd rather approach with kindness first
Please tell me that the messages have other options to view the notices than X links, and you're just complaining that they use X at all. If not, I second the suggestion to raise a complaint with the city.
The best interpretation is that they hope people will retweet the notices and help spread them, in which case yeah, makes sense to keep sending the X links. X sucks for so many reasons, but spreading time-sensitive information takes priority in emergency situations. Someone might not be on the list for the emergency system, but follow someone on X who is and recognize the car or kids in the Amber Alert despite being multiple states away. It's best to post that information on multiple platforms, not just X, for maximum visibility.
But if that's the ONLY way to view the information? No. Official messages should not be gated behind having an account on a third-party website. They're totally behooven to the whims of that third party to distribute information, and X is particularly inconsistent and prone to changes because of Elon's whims. (And also breaking. I genuinely expect X won't gradually fade away, but something will break in a way that can't be fixed one day.)
There is definitely an annoying amount of increased friction of using simple web services these days, but my optimistic hope for the future is that it could turn out for the better. I already see a resurgence in the indieweb with small personal websites and blog as sort of a statement that everything on the web doesn't need a commercial purpose. While the increasing amount of paywalls is on the surface making the web less usable that it used to be, it can also foster a return for especially news and journalistic outlets to go back to strengthening their own brand and paying subscribers. I would rather see them make their product worth paying for for me as a subscriber, than the previous decades of chasing ad impression through clickbait. If that means we can't see a tweet on X without an account, I think the loss would be minimal.
While I do think it's great that AI companies shouldn't be taking someone else's content and selling them as their own, I'm wondering if this work is perhaps is going to have negative impact by creating bad incentives.
The article talks about content creators in absolute terms, as if all content they produce is valuable, but the ability to monetise tends to drive the quality of that content down as many see it as an opportunity to put the minimum effort possible and expect a payout. And that's assuming they're not using AI themselves to create that content, which could be hypocritical depending on how it's done.
Conversely, people being able to monetize their work makes it possible for them to sustainably produce good content. (Or bad. You can't have one without the other.)
I have to say "making it possible for independent content creators to make a living is bad, actually" isn't a take I expected to see on this article.
You read way too much into my comment if it's what you're referencing with your second sentence, mate. How am I saying that anyone making a living is bad? I'm saying the article made one big assumption and ran with it, and that the economic incentives may drive creation of slop. Quality creators should get paid fairly and should make a living producing content.
I don’t see that as a new or unique problem — that’s already incentivised by advertising today. If anything, I think this might lead to better outcomes because the target of advertising is real human attention, but if your business model is shaped to take advantage of this style of monetisation, then your target audience is bots and scrapers, and wasting the time of scrapers for money isn’t a big concern for me.