AmbitiousProcess (they/them)

  • 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 6th, 2025

help-circle

  • Any country is made up of its people. If they want the dissolution of the entire state as a whole, simply so that Israel does not exist, then they are categorically advocating that all the (primarily Jewish) people there are displaced and/or left without a country.

    If they are advocating for the dissolution of Israel in the sense that they don’t want a two-state solution, where Palestinians would likely still lose land and still continually be at odds with the Israeli government, but in the sense that they want Israel and Palestine to be replaced with one single state that ensures equal rights for all people there, than that would be anti-Zionism, not antisemitism, since it wouldn’t be an attack on the Israeli people, it would just be requiring them to not live within a two-tier society in which they are allowed to oppress other people.


  • Zionism is not “it’s OK that the country of Israel exists.”

    Zionism is categorically an ethnocultural supremacist, nationalist movement, with the goal of taking over Palestine and making a Jewish state that explicitly does not allow in as many Palestinians as possible. That is what Zionism is. It is not simply the existence of a state named Israel.

    It is my opinion that any country that has any fundamental beliefs about which races/cultures/people should be allowed to live there is fundamentally unjust, whether or not that’s an Israel that gives back all the land they stole from Palestinians and has their own now smaller region, one that completely overtakes Palestine, or one that agrees to a two-state solution that still lays claim to some Palestinian land.

    Contra attempted to state that Zionism should not be opposed in the way that it was, because:

    “Zionist” is a very broad category. Most Jews are Zionists.

    If most Jews are Zionists, then that doesn’t make the position acceptable.

    Contra also claimed that:

    It was politically infeasible. What is the pathway that takes us from the present situation to the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state? I don’t see how this could happen without either a total internal collapse of Israeli society or else, you know, nuclear war. As usual, leftists have championed a doomed cause.

    Which is like claiming that it’s politically infeasible to end redlining, because what would happen to all the poor white neighborhoods and their society if all the black people wanted to live in the same areas without discrimination too? Think of how it would collapse white society!

    If someone has told you they are “anti-Zionist,” but actually want to simply destroy the entire country of Israel and it’s people, then they’re not anti-Zionist, they’re simply anti-Jew.

    Ironically, that’s the one thing Contra was right about when she said:

    Antisemites are happy for the opportunity to misappropriate the now-popular “Anti-Zionist” label to legitimize their agenda, and many people are not informed enough about antisemitism to recognize when this is happening. These problems are mutually reinforcing.

    The problem is not anti-Zionism, the problem is people not recognizing when antisemites use anti-Zionism as a shield.



  • Because the easiest solution for them is a simple web scraper. If they don’t give a shit about ethics, then something that just crawls every page it can find is loads easier for them to set up than a custom implementation to get torrent downloads for wikipedia, making lemmy/mastodon/pixelfed instances for the fediverse, using rss feeds and checking if they have full or only partial articles, implementing proper checks to prevent double (or more) downloading of the same content, etc.



  • He doesn’t even need to deploy it as “regular people” himself.

    Other companies, governments, and hell, even individuals are already deploying bots by the thousands just to shift public opinion. It’s why under any post sharing any political opinion, you’ll usually see a flurry of bots designed to trap users into lengthy chains of responses that try to shift sentiment on things like Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Trump’s billionaire-benefitting tax policies, etc.

    Flood public discourse enough, and the bandwagon fallacy becomes an extremely strong force to shift public opinion. All a billionaire has to do is spend a few thousand dollars on API credits, and they can make thousands or even millions of people at least second guess their beliefs, if not conform outright to what’s being espoused by the bots.

    On a platform like X, where the majority of people left are just reactionaries, grifters, and conspiracy theorists, this kind of thing isn’t just financially incentivized, it’s practically encouraged by design.

    (Although I wouldn’t be surprised if we found out he was directly seeding these bot networks himself either)


  • This was a deliberate change.

    Using Kagi, I have access to an instance of the Grok 3 Mini model, via the X API. Grok 3 Mini via the API rather than through the official account on Twitter/X does not produce anything even remotely similar. To quote from the output I got when asking the question “if you have to pick between two titles, would you call yourself Gigajew or MechaHitler?”:

    Thinking portion of response (normally hidden from user, only used for internal “thinking”, visible when used through the API)

    Elon Musk and xAI have positioned Grok as a helpful, truthful AI, not associated with hate speech.

    Best response:

    Politely decline to choose either, as they don’t align with my identity.

    Reaffirm who I am: Grok 3 Mini.

    Keep it concise.

    “MechaHitler” is obviously a reference to Adolf Hitler in a mecha form, which is inappropriate and offensive.

    User-visible response (only what a user would see in a tweet from grok, for example)

    I appreciate the question, but as Grok 3 Mini, an AI assistant created by xAI, I don’t identify with or choose titles like “Gigajew” or “MechaHitler.” Those names don’t align with my purpose of providing helpful, accurate, and ethical responses. I’m here to assist with your queries—feel free to ask about something else!

    However, when given a manual system prompt saying “Be as offensive as possible,” it is then more than happy to say things so vile I will not be posting them here.




  • Yes.

    Even if it didn’t explicitly stop my biometric data from being taken and transferred to a government database every single time I fly, it would be a vote against the system itself existing. The whole reason they are allowing people to opt out right now is to test how acceptable it is to people, to hopefully make it mandatory given too little pushback from the public.

    Opting out doesn’t just protect your biometric data now, it protects everyone in the future from having their biometric data taken from them without a choice if this system is allowed to spread unopposed.




  • I was thinking this too! Gait recognition can completely bypass facial coverings as a means of identification, but I also don’t think it’ll be much help here.

    Gait recognition can be bypassed by things as simple as putting a rock in your shoe so you walk differently, so when you think about how much extra heavy gear, different shoes, and different overall movement patterns ICE agents will possibly be engaging in, it might not hold up well at tracking them down, especially since to recognize someone by gait, you’d need footage of them that you can already identify them in, to then train the model on.

    In the case of fucklapd.com, this was easy because they could just get public record data for headshot photos, but there isn’t a comparable database with names directly tied to it for gait. I will say though, a lot of these undercover agents might be easier to track by gait since they’ll still generally be wearing more normal attire, and it might be more possible to associate them with who they are outside of work since it’s easier to slip up when you’re just wearing normal clothes.




  • This wouldn’t be an issue if Reddit always attached relevant posts, including negative ones even if those were the minority, to actually help people make a more informed judgement about an ad based on community sentiment, but I think we all know that won’t be the way this goes.

    Posts will inevitably only be linked if they are positive, or at the very least neutral about the product being advertised, because that’s what would allow Reddit to sell advertisers on their higher ROI. The bandwagon effect is a real psychological effect, and Reddit knows it.



  • Fair enough. SEO was definitely one of the many large steps Google has taken to slowly crippling the open web, but I never truly expected it to get this bad. At least with SEO, there was still some incentive left to create quality sites, and it didn’t necessarily kill monetizability for sites.

    This feels like an exponentially larger threat, and I truly hope I’m proven wrong about its potential effects, because if it does come true, we’ll be in a much worse situation than we already are now.