Migrated from @0x1C3B00DA
on-demand pods that travel on existing abandoned railways.
They’re reusing existing tracks.
What legislation like this would do is essentially let the biggest players pull the ladders up behind them
But you’re claiming that there’s already no ladder. Your previous paragraph was about how nobody but the big players can actually start from scratch.
All this aside from the conceptual flaws of such legislation. You’d be effectively outlawing people from analyzing data that’s publicly available
How? This is a copyright suit. Like I said in my last comment, the gathering of the data isn’t in contention. That’s still perfectly legal and anyone can do it. The suit is about the use of that data in a paid product.
I’m not familiar with the exact amount of resources, but I know it takes a lot. My point was about what specifically is in contention here.
Also, you were the one pointing out that this case could entrench “giant fucking corporations” in the space. But if they’re the only ones who can afford the resources to train them, then this case won’t have an effect on that entrenchment
Harvesting the dataset isn’t the problem. Using copyrighted work in a paid product is the problem. Individuals could still train their own models for personal use
yes exactly what sneezycat said. I was being sarcastic and pointing out that Manifest V3 was always a crackdown on ad blocking and nothing else.
It’s funny how this comes after Chrome’s switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can’t block ads on the first-party site, they’re going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.
Super agree with that. Framing this feature as specific to journalism was a poor choice. The feature is useful for any writer/blogger/joe schmoe on the web