Post

Assuming that was true, which it isn't, we are all of course willing to trust *Meta's* opinions on appropriate guardrails, right? Thing'll probably reject prompts because the user's request wasn't invasive enough.

DBdant@dbdant.bsky.social

Got this message from Microsoft365 today. Sounds to me like Microsoft plans on us serfs paying for their data center construction and operation, limiting what we can use, and then giving the best of the AI advantages to their 1%-ers who can 'afford' it.

Meta is also collaborating with Walmart and other “partners” to sell your data and implement “dynamic pricing.” Google that nightmare for our affordability crisis.

Why in the chicken-fried fuck is your ostensibly respectable publication acting as a giddy mouthpiece for a sociopath? Stick to quality reporting and leave this puff piece bullshit for some other rag.

It used to be that if you were being forced to write a shitty article you'd do something like write a scathing truth in the first letters of each column or something like that. You guys just said "Sir yes sir" and put a few more bullets in your dignity's corpse, huh?

Honestly I think we should just be done with news companies. Individuals can work together and do their own journalism on topics that matter, and then we don't have to pretend like there's this institutional credibility bullshit that just gets exploited for money and power.

..meta who stole people's data, encouraged kids to be suicidal and takes no responsibility for child exploit photos..can eat a bag of dicks. Y'all are fucking dumb using this shit