Artists have finally had enough with Meta’s predatory AI policies, but Meta’s loss is Cara’s gain. An artist-run, anti-AI social platform, Cara has grown from 40,000 to 650,000 users within the last week, catapulting it to the top of the App Store charts.
Instagram is a necessity for many artists, who use the platform to promote their work and solicit paying clients. But Meta is using public posts to train its generative AI systems, and only European users can opt out, since they’re protected by GDPR laws. Generative AI has become so front-and-center on Meta’s apps that artists reached their breaking point
removed by mod
Tell them this:
🚩 Anti-libre software, Cara, bans us from removing malicious source code. We don’t have time to waste your life repeating the same failure.
They might ask:
What is anti-libre? We don’t control. It controls us.
And:
How do we know? It fails to include a libre software license file, like the AGPL.
Say this instead:
open sourcelibre software (‘open source’ is created to subvert libre software)closedanti-libre (closed implies open, see above)We are the product.(paid stuff abuses too) With anti-libre software, we are no the user, we are used.Love your ethos.
You familiar with the Curse of Knowledge?:
Using the two words “source code” with a developer is expected.
With a random artist? Or like 20 or 40 or 75% of artists? Potential dead end.
Keep up the core mindset for sure buddy. Approaches can always be refined and I see you gave it a shot in your edit!
Thanks, they can web search it. Not saying ‘source code’ give attackers too much space. Feedback is welcome.
You may be interested in running a little experiment. The next few times you see a Lemmy post that is best understood with additional context, you can try posting a relevant Wikipedia link.
The next few times after that, you can try posting not only a link but also your own summary, a quoted paragraph, and/or a screenshot.
I would be shocked if you do not have significantly more engagement from simply taking an extra 10 to 15 seconds to screenshot, crop, and embed.
Now, remember, your point of comparison is against where you were already providing a DIRECT LINK to information. It’s a simple fact (in my eyes) that fewer people click than scroll. Translate this to IRL: you want to preach the good word, right? How high do you want the barrier to be: hope someone will
DuckDuckGo(naw Google obviously) that term you didn’t understand, or know that there’s barely a barrier thanks to meeting the person where they are by pre-translating to normie?We can always let the perfect be the enemy of the good, if we care more about minority perfection than real widespread results.
I should help work on this pitch with you later, will leave a final thought for now:
Excellent comment, bookmarked, thank you!
What do you mean by this?:
Cara, bans us from removing malicious source code
Is there obviously malicious source code? Is there a policy that specifically says we can’t remove any source code? Is this even open source?
‘Open source’ is created to subvert libre software. The ban alone is a 🚩 red flag.
Waht is “libre software”? this is a totally new term to me and searching for it has turned up nothing.
You understand that search results are different for different people, right? I’ve been a dev for… an embarrassingly long time, I’ve never heard “libreware” outside of specifically the libreoffice suite. Sorry I’m not as in-tune with the slang as you are or whatever.
Maybe yours does.
YES, IT DOES, THATS MY ENTIRE POINT.
This essay may help clearing things up
What ban?
They’re using loaded language to say that without access to the source code and the ability to modify it, Cara could start behaving in a way you don’t like and you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
Meta uses loaded language to takeover our computing.
Source, or did they include an AGPL, libre software license?
What does copyright law have to do with a ban on removing malicious code?
What do you think bans it? Copyright law, unless they include, for example, a libre software license.
You realize that copyright law still applies… whether you add some additional license to your software or not… right?
I really appreciate your super stark pro libre software attitude. I want to support you here. You should know that the approach you are taking is ultra abrasive and would probably cause more harm than help.
People would just associate libre software with militant weirdos, if all they saw where your posts.
If you want to make meaningful change I strongly recommend taking a softer less abrasive approach.
We want libre software to be connected with safety, friendliness and personal autonomy, not militarism, chanted phrases, and dogma.
Even on Lemmy the ultra pro libre software social network (relative to non federated networks) your current approach is off putting. I want you to succeed and I think a different approach may be better.
Just my two cents.
People try that and we still get news like this but your feedback is welcome.
Every time you call a product “malware” with absolutely no facts to back it up, you make yourself (and the movement) look idiotic. Please just stop.
Please, stop making yourself look gullible. You have absolutely no proof it’s safe but we know this anti-libre software bans us from removing malicious source code.
Dude you are the one making yourself look dumb. And you still make absolutely no sense, “removing malicious source code”? Removing it from what? Your comments make no sense.
Dude you are the one making yourself look dumb. And you still make absolutely no sense, “removing malicious source code”? Removing it from what? Your comments make no sense.
