Going to go away and read about this. As a Brit living in Spain, I know very little about the ins and outs of what's going on there.
astreus
joined 1 year ago
Kinda like the Imperial measurement system, if you are being compared to Myanmar then perhaps stop?
There's a reason the average black male spends 1/3 of their life in prison in America.
And then has the right to vote taken away when they get out....
Same thing that happens when other slaves are hurt or killed on the job.
Not a hell of a lot.
carbon capture facilities
These are a known scam, by the way. It's just repackaging a technique oil companies already use to squeeze more oil out of the same fields and charge the government and consumers for the pleasure of feeling like they've done something.
Are those labels really needed?
Honestly thought this is where it was going
Fascist and populist are not mutually exclusive.
"Google never specified which of her 222,000 words was inappropriate. There were no highlighted sections, no indicators of what had rendered her documents unshareable. Had one of her readers flagged the content without discussing it with her first? "
So much of her work could have broken the T&Cs that she can't identify what it could be without highlights.
Original Wired article says later in it that Google thought she was spamming
Different author, but if that's the case (and it seems this author shares files to over 80 people in one go) then it's a spam filter issue? Again, non story.
The headline is a complete lie.
I think we read different articles:
This person was not allowed to SHARE the things written. That's not a thought crime.
"Romance" is such a crap term! She was writing porn. Likely with minors. I'm involved with a lot of authors, some also write porn ~~open-door spice~~, and the only things that get Google bans (from what I've been told) are kiddie porn and extreme gore.
While the dangers of handing your documents to Google can't be overstated, don't sympathise too much with this person.
EDIT: y'all know she was only blocked from sharing, right? She did not lose access to any of her work and no one has the right to demand a middle man for their content.
Scenario: Jack draws some heinous CP cartoon. He wants to share it with Alice. He asks Jill to hand it to Alice. Jill says "I am not handing this to anybody." Should Jill be on blast for censoring Jack?
Scenario 2: Jack draws some middling soft-core porn. He wants to share it with Alice. He asks Jill to hand it to Alice. Jill says "I am not handing this to anybody." Should Jill be on blast for censoring Jack?
Okay this sounds interesting as a short term solution (though I don't see what the medium and long term solutions will be) - I'd be interested in knowing what companies are benefiting from this and how much, etc and what the transition plans will be.
But there is one majorly fucked up part of the plan: this is an untested methodology, so they're testing it under the homes of black and poor communities. Louisianan does not disappoint.