• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What we’re seeing is the transition to techno feudalism. Capitalism’s final insult was to privatize surveillance-state authoritarianism.

  • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    7 hours ago

    In the striking memo, the tech giant noted that the ethically-fraught feature should ideally be launched “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.”

    Great article. Per usual, meta is a horrible company filled with horrible people who make the decisions.

    • cloudskipper@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah, it is pretty striking, because it hints at something much larger, such as Meta being the cause of political unrest to further it’s own agenda. That is striking indeed. They should be fully investigated and dismantled in a fair and just democracy.

    • keimevo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 hours ago

      A couple of days ago I finished reading “Careless People” by Sarah Wynn-Williams. This book really shows how awful the people at the top of Facebook are (it probably applies to other similar companies as well). And it’s not that they want to be evil, it’s more like they are playing a game of fame, pride and power and don’t care about the consequences. It made me recall the quote about “the banality of evil”.

    • yucandu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’m curious what they mean by “dynamic political environment” and “other concerns”.

      Like I get that it’s “launch a controversial thing while the people that would care are distracted”. But what are we distracted by?

      • EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Something else, apparently. They would determine that in real time and launch after confirming that the other technology was facing significant backlash.

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    we are not building a central face database

    I honestly cannot understand why the parent company of Facebook would actually release such a parody sounding response

  • ark3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    somewhat sure this won’t fly under GDPR

    though that might as weel end up in category “oh we did an oopsie haha! anyway here is our new ML model that can identify anyone! what do you mean? it doesn’t store anyone’s likeness you sillyy it’s a just a little model”