The Delhi High Court ordered the blocking of Sci-Hub, Sci-Net, and LibGen in India on August 19, 2025, following a copyright infringement case brought by academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society[^5][^7].
The court found that Alexandra Elbakyan, Sci-Hub's founder, violated her December 2020 undertaking not to upload new copyrighted content by making post-2022 articles available through both Sci-Hub and a new platform called Sci-Net[^7]. While Elbakyan claimed this was due to technical errors and argued Sci-Net was a separate project, the court rejected these arguments[^7].
The ruling requires India's Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue blocking orders within 72 hours, with Internet Service Providers required to implement the blocks within 24 hours[^7].
This case marks the first time Sci-Hub and LibGen faced legal action in a developing country[^2]. Earlier intervention attempts by Indian scientists and researchers had argued these platforms were "the only access to educational and research materials" for many academics in India[^2], with social science researchers specifically highlighting the "detrimental effect" blocking would have on research in India[^9].
A group of social science researchers have filed an intervention application, with legal support from IFF, highlighting the adverse impact any decision to block LibGen and SciHub will have on them.
The natural world is built for change. Seasons shift. Rivers rise and fall. The climate gradually warms and cools again. Animals migrate, adapt, and evolve in response to these rhythms. This is how Earth has always worked – and how it’s supposed to work.
The pine forests of the Western U.S. offer a perfect example. For thousands of years, ponderosa and lodgepole pines evolved with periodic wildfires that swept through every decade or two. These fires weren’t disasters – they were essential.
Lodgepole pines actually depend on fire to reproduce. Their resinous cones only open in intense heat, releasing seeds onto the ash bed below. Ponderosa pines developed thick, fire-resistant bark to survive the low-intensity ground fires that cleared out undergrowth. These frequent, cool burns created open forests with widely spaced mature trees, healthy and highly productive ecosystems that provided clean water, timber, and wildlife habitat.
So the problem today isn’t change. It’s the speed of change.
Changes that used to take centuries or millennia are now unfolding in a matter of years. Levels of climate-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen to well above 400 parts per million, a concentration that last occurred about 15 million years ago.
But even more concerning is the rate of change: By burning fossil fuels, we are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere 30 times faster than at any point in the last 100 million years. That’s like putting nature’s slow-moving film on fast-forward – only the device is overheating as a result.
Juliana Moreira ed Edoardo Stoppa, ospiti di Caterina Balivo a La Volta Buona, hanno ripercorso i 17 anni della loro storia d'amore, mostrando il lato più autentico e ironico della loro coppia... leggi
How OnlyFans Piracy Is Ruining the Internet for Everyone
The internet is becoming harder to use because of unintended consequences in the battle between adult content creators who are trying to protect their livelihoods and the people who pirate their content.
Porn piracy, like all forms of content piracy, has existed for as long as the internet. But as more individual creators who make their living on services like OnlyFans, many of them have hired companies to send Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices against companies that steal their content. As some of those services turn to automation in order to handle the workload, completely unrelated content is getting flagged as violating their copyrights and is being deindexed from Google search. The process exposes bigger problems with how copyright violations are handled on the internet, with automated systems filing takedown requests that are reviewed by other automated systems, leading to unintended consequences.
These errors show another way in which automation without human review is making the internet as we know it increasingly unusable. They also highlight the untenable piracy problem for adult content creators, who have little recourse to stop their paid content from being redistributed all over the internet.
I first noticed how bad some of these DMCA takedown requests are because one of them targeted 404 Media. I was searching Google for an article Sam wrote about Instagram’s AI therapists. I Googled “AI therapists 404 Media,” and was surprised it didn’t pop up because I knew we had covered the subject. Then I saw a note from Google at the bottom of the page noting Google had removed some search results “In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”
The notice linked to the Lumen Database, which keeps a record of DMCA complaints, who filed them, and for what. According to the Lumen Database, the complaint was filed by a company called Takedowns AI on behalf of content creator Marie Temara. Takedowns AI is one of many companies that help content creators, especially adult content creators, to scan the internet for images and videos they posted behind paywalls on platforms like OnlyFans and posted elsewhere for free. These companies also file DMCA takedown requests and navigate the copyright systems of big platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Reddit. One of the most effective ways of preventing people from finding this pirated content is sending DMCA takedown requests to Google asking the search engine to delist results to sites that share it. As its name implies, Takedowns AI heavily relies on automation to do this work.
The complaint that impacted 404 Media included a list of 68 links to different websites that allegedly violated Temara’s copyright on content she posted to Instagram, OnlyFans, and other platforms. This was the allegedly offending link on 404 Media, which is a collage Sam made for her AI Facebook therapists story.
The collage includes Meta's AI-generated profile pictures of three of these AI therapists. The story itself has nothing to do with Temara, and the profile pictures look nothing like her. In fact, it would be hard for anyone to claim copyright for that image because in 2023 a U.S. court ruled that AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted.
I went through every other link in the same complaint and couldn’t find even one link that looked like it violated Temara’s copyrights. There were images from Grand Theft Auto V, famous baseball players, robots, stock images of people at theme parks, and movie posters, none of which looked remotely similar to Temara. In addition to 404 Media’s article about AI therapists, some of the pages that Google removed from search results due to this complaint included tech site wccftech.com, horror movie site bloody-disgusting.com, and rugby and wrestling sites.
These links are also just part of one complaint out of hundreds that Takedowns AI files every day. I looked through dozens of complaints to Google filed by Takedowns AI that were archived by the Lumen Database. The vast majority of them appear to be legitimate, but I did find other egregious mistakes. One of the worst mistakes I saw was a takedown request filed on behalf of a creator who goes by “honeyybee” against an article about actual honey bees on the University of Missouri’s website. The takedown request clearly targeted the article and caused Google to remove it from search results just because it was about a subject with a similar name to that of Takedown AI’s client.
Temara and honeyybee did not respond to a request for comment.
Takedowns AI CEO Kunal Anand told me that the company has filed 12 million takedowns requests to Google since 2022. He said that Takedowns AI uses facial recognition, keyword searches, and human reviewers to find and take down copyrighted content, and said he was overall confident in the company’s accuracy. Anand told me that sometimes his clients use Google Search’s API to see what results come up when they search for themselves, then ask Takedowns AI to remove everything on that list as is, which is what he thinks might have happened with Temara and honeyybee.
“We don't really review it [the list] because we are an agent for them,” Ananad said. “For the requests that we send out ourselves, usually they get reviewed, but sometimes they [clients] do a search by themselves, and they come across some content and they flag it and they're like, ‘We want this taken down.’ We don't review that because that is something that they want taken down. I'm not particularly sure about this case, but that is what happens. What we planned on doing was also reviewing these but it's usually not very fruitful, because the user is very sure they want that claim. And even if we say, ‘Hey, we don't think you should do that,’ they're like, ‘We want to do it. Just do it because I'm paying you for this.’ And if we just say, do it yourself, that kind of takes away the business from us. So that is basically how it works.”
Yvette van Bekkum, the CEO of Cam Model Protection, a company that’s offering the same services as Takedowns AI but that has been in business since 2014, told me that her company does not process requests like Anand described for clients. Cam Model Protection also uses AI, reverse image searches, and keyword searches to find infringing material, but it has systems in place to prevent false positives, Bekkum told me. These include a database of “whitelisted” content that it shouldn’t file takedown requests against, and human verification that each link the company sends to Google actually points to infringing content.
“Just a news article is not a copyright infringement,” Bekkum told me. “If there is no content being used or only a name being named, I don't need to explain to you that it's not in violation. Everybody can make a mistake, of course, but if you just randomly gather [links] and then report it, if it's not grounded on an infringement, you should not report it, of course.”
Bekkum and Ananad both said they understand why creators don’t want to click on every link that might be infringing on their copyright. It’s not only too much work—that’s why companies like Cam Model Protection exist in the first place—it also requires sifting through a sea of pornography they don’t want to see.
“This process is so time consuming,” Bekkum said. “And they do not want to focus on all that negative energy in Googling their name and seeing pages and pages full of links leading to illegal content.”
Elaina St. James, an adult content creator, told me she used a copyright takedown service and that it was most helpful when she flagged offending sites herself. St. James said she used the service to take down pirated content as well as catfishing accounts using her images, a problem 404 Media previously talked to her about. Overall, St. James said these services are useful but imperfect.
“I think they [DMCA takedown request companies] should stop overpromising,” she told me in an email. “There are some platforms—TikTok in particular—that do not comply. Tube sites in foreign countries also rarely comply.”
Automation of DMCA takedown requests has existed for years and has always resulted in some errors. Similar problems have also plagued YouTube’s automated Content ID system for years. More sites are likely to get caught in the crossfire as more content creators strike out on their own and turn to these services in an attempt to protect their income.
It’s an issue at the intersection of several critical problems with the modern internet: Google’s search monopoly, rampant porn piracy, a DMCA takedown process vulnerable to errors and abuse, and now the automation of all of the above in order to operate at scale. No one I talked to for this story thought there was an easy solution to this problem.
“It's all science fiction, but in the dumbest possible way,” Meredith Rose, a senior policy counsel with Public Knowledge who focuses on copyright, DMCA, and intellectual property reform, told me. “At the end of the day, the DMCA takedown provisions are a way to get speech off the internet. That's a very powerful tool. Even if you're not outright malicious, if somebody says something nasty about you and you want to keep your name out of their mouth, the DMCA kind of lets you do it without anybody checking your work. And so it is this really interesting case study in when you build these tools that give the power to anybody, even people who might not be who they say they are in these applications to get stuff taken down. Abuse happens. Sometimes it happens at scale. It happens for all different kinds of reasons. Sometimes it's just malice, sometimes it's incompetence, sometimes it's buggy automation [...] I feel like with AI, we're going to see a lot more of this.”
Anand said he believes the responsibility is with creators.
“The best way to solve that is to educate the creators more that this is not their content,” he told me. “A lot of creators are very scared, and what they want is everything about them taken down from everywhere. And then they start getting more aggressive with their takedowns.”
A spokesperson for Google told me that the vast majority of DMCA removals come from reporters who have a track record of valid takedowns, and that its DMCA removals process aims to find a balance between making it easy and efficient for rightsholders to report infringing content while also protecting free expression on the web.
“We actively fight fraudulent takedown attempts by using a combination of automated and human review to detect signals of abuse,” the Google spokesperson said. “We provide extensive transparency about these removals to hold requesters accountable, and sites can file counter notices if they believe a removal was made in error.”
I feel like the problem mentioned is like a drop in the ocean compared to the enshitification of Google as a whole. Google has been almost unusable even if this didn’t happen.
How do you think DDG 'skips the SEO stuff'? They don't have their own index, they are a meta search engine and the indices they rely on are subject to SEO efforts of the various pages
Google's control over the internet will harm all users as they scram further to find places where profit can be squeezed more and more until they're functionally bankrupt.
not just internet, they are going to prevent android users from installing any programs they dont approve first. So most likely goodbye f-droid and any opensource program
Yeah but really does that even matter when the top results are just ads anyway? The problem is advertising has taken over search engines and now AI makes it even less likely people "searching" for things will even bother to click off of the search website.
DMCA takedown abuse isn't anything new, this article seems like it was just due to 404 media having to deal with it, onlyfans is tangentially related and clearly just used in the headline for clickbait purposes... I really expected better of 404 media, The issue is a valid and increasingly worse one, it shouldnt need a clickbait headline. "DMCA Automation is ruining the internet" or something to that effect would have been a lot better.
This whole thing is also a scam on content creators, people arent pirating content by searching for it on google, they're finding out about websites by talking to people on discord (which itself is not searchable of course) and other such services. Anyone paying for these kind of takedown services is getting taken for a ride.
DMCA takedown abuse isn’t anything new, this article seems like it was just due to 404 media having to deal with it, onlyfans is tangentially related and clearly just used in the headline for clickbait purposes… I really expected better of 404 media, The issue is a valid and increasingly worse one, it shouldnt need a clickbait headline. “DMCA Automation is ruining the internet” or something to that effect would have been a lot better.
That's true, but if the important thing is to draw attention to this issue, this is a good way of doing it even if it's a creative interpretation of the truth.
Enhanced capabilities and availability of tools make a difference. If a company gets the "brilliant" idea to "use AI" to file DMCA requests, encouraged by recent hype of AI and proliferation of many AI tools to make it easy to deploy, then it suddenly becomes a problem, hence why this article exists right now.
But these tools were available for years at least. How do you think Youtube strikes down videos automatically by it's own since like 2012.
The issue is that again and again simpletons are yelling at the hammer instead of the guy that's smashing everything with it. This is so tiring, it makes all of us look so fucking stupid.
It's possible to complain about both because the improved hammer makes the guy smashing everything with it an even bigger problem. Either way it brings attention to the issue, but I have no confidence in politicians making a change for the better at this point, they'll probably just make it even worse.
“We don't really review it [the list] because we are an agent for them,” Ananad said. “For the requests that we send out ourselves, usually they get reviewed, but sometimes they [clients] do a search by themselves, and they come across some content and they flag it and they're like, ‘We want this taken down.’ We don't review that because that is something that they want taken down. I'm not particularly sure about this case, but that is what happens. What we planned on doing was also reviewing these but it's usually not very fruitful, because the user is very sure they want that claim. And even if we say, ‘Hey, we don't think you should do that,’ they're like, ‘We want to do it. Just do it because I'm paying you for this.’ And if we just say, do it yourself, that kind of takes away the business from us. So that is basically how it works.”
They're a cog in a broken machine that needs grease like every other one. It's all just business speak for "why would we want to say something that would make the customer not pay us?"
The DMCA is what you get when you get greedy media and Internet companies to write legislation for lawmakers that have no idea what any of that means, while in the background the people have not had a chance to use any of it. It should have come with an expiration date 10 years from signing and should have been redone now that we are actually using the stuff.
That is the DMCA working exactly as intended. Giving companies the ability to leverage their own wealth and resources to abuse and suppress competition was always the DMCA’s goal.
Copyright in general is about suppressing and abusing competition, there's a little bit of difference now that the old Victorian-style copyright laws lasted as long as the author, more or less, and every legal action was taken through a court, not like these letters of happiness.
It's funny how we seem similar to the pre-WWI mood of "everything has been invented, abolish patents", I wonder if the "pre-WWI" part is too going to rhyme. Hope that not, of course, but most of the innovation seems to be in direct or indirect warfare (all of big tech is honestly that). And there's one nation whose elites seem to make weird destructive moves. And which is on the down trajectory in its GDP relative to the world for the last 50 years. And which has the world's biggest military spending.
After all, humans need a reminder that for the plethora of technologies that seem like a favorable to them weapon unseen before, there are also similarly many technologies that may be unfavorable to them weapons unseen before.
Nazi Germany used radio and encryption and maneuverability and wonderful air force to achieve successes, then the other sides used radars and computers and mass modular production and MLRS'es.
Perhaps the current rotting of copyright and patent system is because the elites think they don't need more natural peaceful development. Global bloodletting usually heals that kind of ideas. Some things can only be learned on your own experience.
Copyright is a surviving instance of the old system of royal warrants: monopolies granted by a monarch, usually to cronies, occasionally as a reward for some kind of good work (scientific discovery, work of art, etc).
It's a system that's full of opportunities for corruption and bureaucratic oppression, and should either be massively scaled back, or dumped entirely. It does far more harm than good.
I agree, unfortunately things only keep existing when there's balance between their sides in power.
Such balance is - those benefiting from copyright have a lot to offer and threaten to those making copyright, and the other way around.
It's all military logic now. 50 years ago it could have been solved by a popular movement, now any movement really threatening copyright will have its figures murdered left and right.
Yup. People talking about DMCA reform, or adding penalties for false takedown requests… In reality, this is the DMCA working exactly as intended. It’s like discussing police reform, but the police are functioning exactly how the ruling class want them to.
Just allow companies to charge a small fee to process a DMCA takedown, and establish a daily compensation rate based on view counts for the uploader (cost payable by the company issuing the takedown - not the entity they represent). Suddenly you only issue a takedown for clear infringement, with the cost paid by the uploader only when clear proof is given that it is a DMCA infringement. If there is a long delay, the uploader gets more compensation, whereas the uploader is only liable for the initial takedown fee.
Can't speak to the why but in practice, nobody ever gets punished for abusing DMCA takedowns even with they use bots to spam fraudulent claims, and it's a widespread practice.
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's not scummy.
And as for people getting shit for free, I support a maximalist position on right of first sale: sharing what you own should be legal in all cases. If that inconveniences some mass aggregator of content, tough shit: the ease of sharing gives the lie to the notion that the aggregator adds any value, instead, they're just rent-seeking parasites.
How OnlyFans Piracy Is Ruining the Internet for Everyone
The internet is becoming harder to use because of unintended consequences in the battle between adult content creators who are trying to protect their livelihoods and the people who pirate their content.
Porn piracy, like all forms of content piracy, has existed for as long as the internet. But as more individual creators who make their living on services like OnlyFans, many of them have hired companies to send Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices against companies that steal their content. As some of those services turn to automation in order to handle the workload, completely unrelated content is getting flagged as violating their copyrights and is being deindexed from Google search. The process exposes bigger problems with how copyright violations are handled on the internet, with automated systems filing takedown requests that are reviewed by other automated systems, leading to unintended consequences.
These errors show another way in which automation without human review is making the internet as we know it increasingly unusable. They also highlight the untenable piracy problem for adult content creators, who have little recourse to stop their paid content from being redistributed all over the internet.
I first noticed how bad some of these DMCA takedown requests are because one of them targeted 404 Media. I was searching Google for an article Sam wrote about Instagram’s AI therapists. I Googled “AI therapists 404 Media,” and was surprised it didn’t pop up because I knew we had covered the subject. Then I saw a note from Google at the bottom of the page noting Google had removed some search results “In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”
The notice linked to the Lumen Database, which keeps a record of DMCA complaints, who filed them, and for what. According to the Lumen Database, the complaint was filed by a company called Takedowns AI on behalf of content creator Marie Temara. Takedowns AI is one of many companies that help content creators, especially adult content creators, to scan the internet for images and videos they posted behind paywalls on platforms like OnlyFans and posted elsewhere for free. These companies also file DMCA takedown requests and navigate the copyright systems of big platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Reddit. One of the most effective ways of preventing people from finding this pirated content is sending DMCA takedown requests to Google asking the search engine to delist results to sites that share it. As its name implies, Takedowns AI heavily relies on automation to do this work.
The complaint that impacted 404 Media included a list of 68 links to different websites that allegedly violated Temara’s copyright on content she posted to Instagram, OnlyFans, and other platforms. This was the allegedly offending link on 404 Media, which is a collage Sam made for her AI Facebook therapists story.
The collage includes Meta's AI-generated profile pictures of three of these AI therapists. The story itself has nothing to do with Temara, and the profile pictures look nothing like her. In fact, it would be hard for anyone to claim copyright for that image because in 2023 a U.S. court ruled that AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted.
I went through every other link in the same complaint and couldn’t find even one link that looked like it violated Temara’s copyrights. There were images from Grand Theft Auto V, famous baseball players, robots, stock images of people at theme parks, and movie posters, none of which looked remotely similar to Temara. In addition to 404 Media’s article about AI therapists, some of the pages that Google removed from search results due to this complaint included tech site wccftech.com, horror movie site bloody-disgusting.com, and rugby and wrestling sites.
These links are also just part of one complaint out of hundreds that Takedowns AI files every day. I looked through dozens of complaints to Google filed by Takedowns AI that were archived by the Lumen Database. The vast majority of them appear to be legitimate, but I did find other egregious mistakes. One of the worst mistakes I saw was a takedown request filed on behalf of a creator who goes by “honeyybee” against an article about actual honey bees on the University of Missouri’s website. The takedown request clearly targeted the article and caused Google to remove it from search results just because it was about a subject with a similar name to that of Takedown AI’s client.
Temara and honeyybee did not respond to a request for comment.
Takedowns AI CEO Kunal Anand told me that the company has filed 12 million takedowns requests to Google since 2022. He said that Takedowns AI uses facial recognition, keyword searches, and human reviewers to find and take down copyrighted content, and said he was overall confident in the company’s accuracy. Anand told me that sometimes his clients use Google Search’s API to see what results come up when they search for themselves, then ask Takedowns AI to remove everything on that list as is, which is what he thinks might have happened with Temara and honeyybee.
“We don't really review it [the list] because we are an agent for them,” Ananad said. “For the requests that we send out ourselves, usually they get reviewed, but sometimes they [clients] do a search by themselves, and they come across some content and they flag it and they're like, ‘We want this taken down.’ We don't review that because that is something that they want taken down. I'm not particularly sure about this case, but that is what happens. What we planned on doing was also reviewing these but it's usually not very fruitful, because the user is very sure they want that claim. And even if we say, ‘Hey, we don't think you should do that,’ they're like, ‘We want to do it. Just do it because I'm paying you for this.’ And if we just say, do it yourself, that kind of takes away the business from us. So that is basically how it works.”
Yvette van Bekkum, the CEO of Cam Model Protection, a company that’s offering the same services as Takedowns AI but that has been in business since 2014, told me that her company does not process requests like Anand described for clients. Cam Model Protection also uses AI, reverse image searches, and keyword searches to find infringing material, but it has systems in place to prevent false positives, Bekkum told me. These include a database of “whitelisted” content that it shouldn’t file takedown requests against, and human verification that each link the company sends to Google actually points to infringing content.
“Just a news article is not a copyright infringement,” Bekkum told me. “If there is no content being used or only a name being named, I don't need to explain to you that it's not in violation. Everybody can make a mistake, of course, but if you just randomly gather [links] and then report it, if it's not grounded on an infringement, you should not report it, of course.”
Bekkum and Ananad both said they understand why creators don’t want to click on every link that might be infringing on their copyright. It’s not only too much work—that’s why companies like Cam Model Protection exist in the first place—it also requires sifting through a sea of pornography they don’t want to see.
“This process is so time consuming,” Bekkum said. “And they do not want to focus on all that negative energy in Googling their name and seeing pages and pages full of links leading to illegal content.”
Elaina St. James, an adult content creator, told me she used a copyright takedown service and that it was most helpful when she flagged offending sites herself. St. James said she used the service to take down pirated content as well as catfishing accounts using her images, a problem 404 Media previously talked to her about. Overall, St. James said these services are useful but imperfect.
“I think they [DMCA takedown request companies] should stop overpromising,” she told me in an email. “There are some platforms—TikTok in particular—that do not comply. Tube sites in foreign countries also rarely comply.”
Automation of DMCA takedown requests has existed for years and has always resulted in some errors. Similar problems have also plagued YouTube’s automated Content ID system for years. More sites are likely to get caught in the crossfire as more content creators strike out on their own and turn to these services in an attempt to protect their income.
It’s an issue at the intersection of several critical problems with the modern internet: Google’s search monopoly, rampant porn piracy, a DMCA takedown process vulnerable to errors and abuse, and now the automation of all of the above in order to operate at scale. No one I talked to for this story thought there was an easy solution to this problem.
“It's all science fiction, but in the dumbest possible way,” Meredith Rose, a senior policy counsel with Public Knowledge who focuses on copyright, DMCA, and intellectual property reform, told me. “At the end of the day, the DMCA takedown provisions are a way to get speech off the internet. That's a very powerful tool. Even if you're not outright malicious, if somebody says something nasty about you and you want to keep your name out of their mouth, the DMCA kind of lets you do it without anybody checking your work. And so it is this really interesting case study in when you build these tools that give the power to anybody, even people who might not be who they say they are in these applications to get stuff taken down. Abuse happens. Sometimes it happens at scale. It happens for all different kinds of reasons. Sometimes it's just malice, sometimes it's incompetence, sometimes it's buggy automation [...] I feel like with AI, we're going to see a lot more of this.”
Anand said he believes the responsibility is with creators.
“The best way to solve that is to educate the creators more that this is not their content,” he told me. “A lot of creators are very scared, and what they want is everything about them taken down from everywhere. And then they start getting more aggressive with their takedowns.”
A spokesperson for Google told me that the vast majority of DMCA removals come from reporters who have a track record of valid takedowns, and that its DMCA removals process aims to find a balance between making it easy and efficient for rightsholders to report infringing content while also protecting free expression on the web.
“We actively fight fraudulent takedown attempts by using a combination of automated and human review to detect signals of abuse,” the Google spokesperson said. “We provide extensive transparency about these removals to hold requesters accountable, and sites can file counter notices if they believe a removal was made in error.”
Hey, bit of a crazy idea , but what if we accelerated the destruction of the internet, destroyed it from within before those trying to capture it were ready to take over ?
Yes. An AI alternative to LOIC is desperately needed, for every humanist with a computer to run and to attack the enemy with streams and streams of textual and visual garbage.
I mean like 89% of the shit on Reddit is some OF model advertising.
fr
This
Real
Your comment has been banned and you have been banned from this subreddit for < insert random inapplicable rule >. This message is automated by moderator bot. Do not reply.
Copyright, with a reasonable term (say, 14 years) is potentially useful in preserving author's rights to profit from their own works. Patent laws should be applied far more strictly with respect to prior art and what constitutes a significant innovation, and should never be applied to algorithms. "Same as X, but ON THE INTERNET!" patents should be rejected in every case.
It's monopolistic corporations and incompetent governments that are runing the Internet for everyone. OF is a pox, but compared to those larger factors, OF piracy is nearly irrelevant. It might even be a positive if it damages OF.
In a new paper, several Stanford economists studied payroll data from the private company ADP, which covers millions of workers, through mid-2025. They found that young workers aged 22–25 in “highly AI-exposed” jobs, such as software developers and customer service agents, experienced a 13 percent decline in employment since the advent of ChatGPT. Notably, the economists found that older workers and less-exposed jobs, such as home health aides, saw steady or rising employment. “There’s a clear, evident change when you specifically look at young workers who are highly exposed to AI,” Stanford economist Erik Brynjolfsson, who wrote the paper with Bharat Chandar and Ruyu Chen, told the Wall Street Journal.
In five months, the question of “Is AI reducing work for young Americans?” has its fourth answer: from possibly, to definitely, to almost certainly no, to plausibly yes. You might find this back-and-forth annoying. I think it’s fantastic. This is a model for what I want from public commentary on social and economic trends: Smart, quantitatively rich, and good-faith debate of issues of seismic consequence to American society.
Meh. Nothing in this article is strong evidence of anything. They're only looking at a tiny sample of data and wildly speculating about which entry-level jobs are being supplanted by AI.
As a software engineer who uses AI, I fail to see how AI can replace any given entry-level software engineering position. There's no way! Any company that does that is just asking for trouble.
What's more likely, is that AI is making senior software engineers more productive so they don't need to hire more developers to assist them with more trivial/time consuming tasks.
This is a very temporary thing, though. As anyone in software can tell you: Software only gets more complex over time. Eventually these companies will have to start hiring new people again. This process usually takes about six months to a year.
If AI is causing a drop in entry-level hiring, my speculation (which isn't as wild as in the article since I'm actually there on the ground using this stuff) is that it's just a temporary blip while companies work out how to take advantage the slightly-enhanced productivity.
It's inevitable: They'll start new projects to build new stuff because now—suddenly—they have the budget. Then they'll hire people to make up the difference.
This is how companies have worked since the invention of bullshit jobs. The need for bullshit grows with productivity.
Top upvoted comment just tore a big fat hole into the entire argument and I have to say, good for the comments section. That's so rare.
One open question here is whether we’re seeing youth employment decrease because AI is effectively replacing entry level workers in these fields, or because executives wrongly think AI can or will soon be able to do so?
You have to assume that if anybody puts a hiring freeze for junior employees right now it'd be out of some combination of caution, hype and insecurity about the economic landscape thanks to the usual suspects.
Turns out if the discussion is "quantitatively rich" but is ignoring the obvious qualitative observation it may end up flip-flopping a bunch. I'm not sure I'm as excited about that as the author, because man, is that a constant of the modern corporate world and does it suck and cost people money and stress.
I fail to see how AI can replace any given entry-level SE
You don't "get it"?
AI is making senior software engineers more productive so they don’t need to hire more devs
Yes, I think you do.
I largely look at this as leadership using AI hype as an excuse to cut staff regardless of actual productivity. The house of cards hasn't come down quite yet.
There’s a growing wisdom gap coming in America. The people who are already well versed in company practices and culture are going to use AI to complete the tasks that they would have otherwise given to assistants and junior resources.
The junior resources are going to struggle to find jobs because they are lacking in the KSAs that schools simply cannot provide training for. And that means when us Gen Xers and later Millenials retire there could be a major gap where we have few people with that inherent knowledge to replace us. And where there’s no work and no hope, you get something akin to what is starting to occur in China right now…or revolt.
My hope is that schools will be rethought and there will be a lot more focus on getting an internship early and for the long term. Something more like apprenticeships, which the blue collar workforce maintained, but it’s something we’ll likely need to bring back to white collar jobs.
This isn’t to say that schools should diminish a well rounded education. I think it’s extremely important for students to take electives outside of their focus for a multitude of reasons, one being that it helps students realize the importance of how others contribute to society.
Apprenticeships can help to fill the knowledge gap, but the white collars that are in the jobs now will also need to be retrained and made comfortable to work with a large influx of apprentices to make this approach a success.
There’s a growing wisdom gap coming in America. The people who are already well versed in company practices and culture are going to use AI to complete the tasks that they would have otherwise given to assistants and junior resources.
Counterpoint: no, they are not. Not with the current path of tech progress on the field, at least.
Because seniors well versed in company practices and culture will get tired of having to manually redo junior work corrections really quick, and we are nowhere close to closing the error correction needs at this point.
Repetitive work that could feasibly have been automated or removed already? Maybe. There was a TON of room for automation that people weren't investing on doing and the AI gold rush will feasibly take advantage of some of that. But AI replacing junior jobs wholesale? Nah. The tech isn't there.
Exactly. The senior is willing to put up with the constant questions and mistakes of a junior/intern, because after a few months, they will be better and take some workload off the senior’s shoulders.
With “AI”, there is no learning curve, it’s like you get a different fresh intern every day, and you have to correct the same mistakes constantly.
You really think education reform is going to win out over creating a giant pool of uneducated serfs for Jeff‘s warehouses? I would give anything for your sense of optimism, honestly.
Here we are celebrating Labor Day, the day that celebrates workers rights - overtime pay for working over 40 hours, limiting children from having to work in factories, weekends and time off.
It was a hard fight from serfdom to poor factory conditions to now. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
The "researchers" in no way demonstrate that "AI" replaced any of the jobs lost. They don't even raise the question of whether "AI" is used to discipline labor despite not being much of a productivity aid.
You're right. I could believe these data might be explained by a lot of businesses being in a "wait and see" phase, hiring conservatively while they see how the AI thing shakes out
It's doesnt have to work, it just has to be convincing enough to get the bean counters and/or incompetent/sociopathic upper management to buy in to the idea that they can save money.
Same as always, if the shitstorm created by a decision isn't immediately devastating or can be incontrovertibly tied to said decision then that's just BAU.
but the time the shitshow starts playing the preroll trailers the golden parachutes and bonuses have been claimed.
For them, this isn't broken, this is how the game works.
It doesn't matter if the implementation is good. All that matters is that middle management gets more stuff "done" with fewer people. Where the definition of "done" is just tgat it hasn't exploded in their face.... yet....
The company I work for has replaced a lot of its employees with AI. It's absolutely useless and we have to cover the loss but the fact it doesn't work very well doesn't help the fired employees.
Junior devs and sysadmins who do not much very useful stuff yet, but get some basic experience. And people whose main required traits are human voice and following script.
Transient processes are a thing, one can have plenty of middle and senior devs and sysadmins, with the economy not producing new ones anymore. So the employers are hiring those, and replacing juniors with AI. Whether that works I'm not sure.
So at some point the AI bubble will be over (at least in dev and sysadmin and such work), but there will be fewer developers, and there might eventually be a situation where there are fewer qualified developers in the economy overall. Which would give centralized corporate things a market advantage over smaller non-corporate things, due to cost of development growing after the fall happening now.
While for some not very qualified jobs humans won't be needed anymore - while that "AI" is expensive, it might really be, even after the bubble crash, more affordable than hiring a human (in a western country) for a bullshit job - except in everything I've read those bullshit jobs were treated as social responsibility to teach work ethic to growing generations, that weird mix of individualist and working class themes in books describing pre-Depression USA. Yes, individualism is important and being self-reliant is important, but even that protestant ethic wasn't about capitalism more than it was about dignity and hard work.
I think Silicon Valley is consciously playing Asimov's Foundation with our planet (seeding technologies affecting humanity's development by some schedule with expected global results), except where Asimov's Foundation was about preserving knowledge and civilization, they are moving in the opposite direction. That is, they may not understand it. They may think they are building that sci-fi empire the Foundation begins with. But in actuality they are breaking concrete and steel things that work and replace them with paper huts kinda resembling something that would work better. Metaphorically.
They don't understand what an empire is, neither the "mandate of heaven" kind nor the "unity of civilization" kind (heck, even the Soviet covertly Christian "building the city of sun" kind, like in Vysotsky's song - "... но сады сторожат и стреляют без промаха в лоб"). You don't build an empire by burning libraries and poisoning discourses, you also don't build an empire by making every its citizen uncertain whether they are a free man or a slave (it's a common misconception to start an attempt at an empire from points where previous empires failed ; that state is usually expected to fail again for the same reasons).
as a consultant/freelancer dev whose entire workload for the past year has been cleaning up AI slop, no with dev it hasn't been what I would say a smooth or even good implementation. for my wallet? been a fantastic implementation, for everyone else? not so much.
The thing is as a TOOL it's great depending on the model. As a rubber duck? fantastic. As something that the majority of companies have utilized with vibe coding to build something end to end? no, it's horrible. It can't scale anything, implements exploits left right and center, and unlike junior devs doesn't learn anything. If you don't hold its hand during a build then it'll quickly go off the rails. It'll implement old APIs or libraries or whatever simply because those things have the most documentation attached to it.
An example. a few weeks ago a client wanted to set up a private git instance with Forgejo. They had Claude Code set it up for them. the problem? Claude went with Forgejo 1.20. ForgeJo is currently on 12.0. MASSIVE security hole right there. Why did Claude do that? 1.20 had more documentation as opposed to 12.0. And when I say "documentation" I could simply be referring to blog posts, articles, whatever that talked about it more than the latest version because The LLM's will leverage that stuff when making decisions for builds. You also see it if you want something in Rust+Smithy. Majority of the time the AI will go for a very outdated version of Smithy because that's what a lot of people talked about at one point. So you're generating massive tech debt before even throwing something into production.
Now like I said as a tool? a problem solver for a function you can't figure out? it's great. the issue is like I said companies aren't seeing it as a tool, they're seeing it as a cost saving replacement for a living human being which it is not. It's like replacing construction worker with a hammer attached to a drone and then wondering why your house frame keeps falling over.
I've seen some beginners trying to use AI to generate simple features for visual novels using Sugarcube (Twine). The code was awful, they didn't understand it and even people with some experience needed time to understand what the fuck the code was even trying to do.
It doesn't have to be a good implementation, it only has to be good enough for a demo to get the C-suite saying "Oh, slap a chatbot on there and then fire half the department that handles this now".
Putting AI to work in place of actual humans in help desk/customer service sounds like a natural evolution, since instead of being ignored by a dumb, exhausted human who's perpetually wishing to find a better job and has a 80% chance of being useless ("I will transfer to the appropriate person"), you'll be misunderstood by a robot.
Just wait all this is just a scam without any real revenue. That's why it's just investments right now into big companies. They're already starting to fail not really recognizing AI isn't supposed to be used in that way anyways.
Scientists say the planned decommissioning of a valuable research vessel is part of a series of actions by the Trump administration that take aim at climate science.
Zimbabwe published draft regulations to establish a National Climate Fund that will finance projects aimed at mitigating the impact of climate change and respond to emergencies.
One is free floating and the other is attached to the international space station. The original team hopes to find funding to save the ISS attached monitor. A more detailed article below
A group that infiltrated Microsoft’s headquarters building this week disputed the company’s account of the incident — describing their sit-in as nonviolent and saying the “listening devices” allegedly left behind were phones that fell from their pockets when they were arrested.
“As Brad himself admits, if someone were to plant listening devices, this is not how they would do it,” said Hossam Nasr, one of the leaders of the group No Azure for Apartheid, referring to comments made by Microsoft President Brad Smith after seven members of the group occupied his office Tuesday afternoon. “If anything, we would like our phones back, please.”
The group, which is calling on Microsoft to cut ties with Israel over the alleged use of its technology against Palestinians in Gaza, also disputed the company’s assertion that its members do not represent elements of its workforce, and questioned the sincerity of Microsoft executives in addressing the issues the protesters have raised.
Un’altra Mostra del Cinema si accende con una presenza che fa discutere e riflettere: quella di Kevin Spacey. L’attore è tornato a calcare un red carpet internazionale di grande rilievo, scegliendo il Lido di Venezia per segnare un ulteriore passo nel suo atteso ritorno sotto i riflettori, dopo la conclusione positiva delle sue vicende legali.
La famiglia Parr sta per tornare, ma armati di pazienza! I fan de Gli Incredibili dovranno aspettare ancora un po’ per il terzo capitolo. L’annuncio ufficiale è arrivato, ma la data di uscita è ancora lontana: 2028, se tutto va bene.
Il finale di If You Love ha lasciato i fan con il cuore spezzato, ma anche pieni di gioia. Dopo settimane di passione, è tempo di dire addio ad Ates, Leyla e al resto del cast. Ma quindi, ci sarà una seconda stagione? Scopriamolo insieme!
Grandi novità dal mondo magico! Per celebrare il “Ritorno a Hogwarts”, è stato annunciato che Warwick Davis tornerà a interpretare il professor Filius Vitious nella serie TV di Harry Potter targata HBO. Un ritorno che farà felici i fan! Ma non è l’unica sorpresa che ci aspetta.
I was searching for YouTube clients on my KDE Plasma Bigscreen GNU/Linux TV box, and found NewPipe, a popular Android YouTube frontend. Turns out this tool is how they moved it over.
Great solution alongside projects like Waydroid, as you can post individual apps to Flathub or other Linux storefronts, rather than needing to install a whole ROM to get your Android apps to appear in your Linux app tray.
It doesn't work like Wine, but I suppose the goal one day is to be able to click .APK files to install like you can with .EXE files with Wine. Currently developers need to integrate it for their (or their favourite open source) apps to install on Linux.
The Android dev kit includes a copy of QEMU that's set up to emulate ARM with a selection of popular screen sizes and revisions of the OS, so that you can test your app on a variety of 'potential phones' before you upload it to the marketplace. Snapdragons are amazingly performant CPUs for how gently they sip at the battery, but they're not that strong in the big scheme of things - any random x86 processor should be able to emulate them while using fifty times the power. A Steam deck ought to be able to do it; the request will then be 'we'd like to play Android games better', which to me is a much more reasonable ask.
I'm currently using a Raspberry Pi with their Debian based OS. It is on Bookworm, but there are major improvements to Plasma Bigscreen on QT6. They didn't make the updates before it was removed for Trixie, and Trixie is still in beta for Raspberry Pi, so doing an in place upgrade for the OS and compiling Plasma Bigscreen for it to see the improvements.
I think Manjaro (which works well on mobile too) has the latest one in their repos, and the KDE ARM OS may have it too if you want to try it without compiling it.
I want to see how difficult it is to drop in OVOS/Neon modules to replace Mycroft ones for voice control too.
FYI, as well if you're looking for a good remote for a GNU/Linux TV box (or Android, Windows, etc), this remote is the best one I've tried from Amazon.
Was just gonna say this. I'm currently using GrapheneOS and am concerned about how long my pixel 8a will last with Google being such assholes. But if this app can solve the issue of not having android, then I'd definitely switch to a Linux phone (with further research of course).
I've heard, which would be mega awesome when it does come out. Maybe I wouldn't have to fight RCS so hard lol. Unfortunately this Pixel 8a I used is only a year old, so getting a new phone in 1-2 years seems like a waste. But if Google goes nuclear in a few years, it's either Graphene hardware, Linux phone, or dummy...
I refuse to go back to Apple, and I didn't come to GrapheneOS just to go back to stock Android.
I'm on a pixel 8 with GrpaheneOS and was hoping not to have to worry until 2027 or whenever the updates end. I would hope the devs at least consider a few years of updates for pixels after they release a me wphone but I guess time will tell.
Genuine question, how do you do banks and Netflix on your phone?
Both apps and others with similar paranoia are my biggest hold ups for rooting or custom ROMs. And nope, laptop is not an option for me, I spend too many work hours on it.
I don't use official streaming apps, I basically pirate everything on a Fire stick TV. Idk if anyone has reported issues with them on GOS. Some of my banking apps work, others don't. I just do the ones that don't work online in browser instead, I feel like it shouldn't be a problem tbh.
If you need tap to pay/Google wallet then you unfortunately can't use GOS due to not being approved by Google or smth. Like SafetyNet issues or smth.
Pixels are still the most secure Android devices and the only ones combining a high level of security with proper support for an alternate OS. However, it's clear they don't value alternate OS support and won't remain the best devices for GrapheneOS once we have official ones.
You should be fine on gOS for 6 yrs+, which is how long google promised to keep up with security updates. The device tree (think hardware drivers), which is what google removed with pixel 10 is what is causing grief, is already there for lower pixels. Unless, of course, google comes up with some new fuckery to invalidate the usability of the security updates (pray I don't alter the deal further...)
I'm afraid with how insecure mobile networks are, modem manufacturers will never dare to open or document their mobile drivers to Linux. And we'll continue to be stuck in this perfectly controlled and planned scenario.
Yeah...but in reality those things usually run their own CPU and firmware, which is undocumented, and you won't catch a manufacturer dead releasing any documentation about it. This is a major roadblock.
also networks. on my network i can't use volte or 5g with a google pixel 5 because they did not "certify" that.
They "certify" a handful of samsung + the iphones, no fairphone and they would absolutely never "certify" stuff like the pinephone, if they could i think they would even blacklist their whole IMEI range
You can just open an apk file with this tool; apps don't need to be integrated with it. It's just that the implementation is far from complete and most apps will not work (correctly) right now.
what about waydroid? I'm thinking of installing chimera linux with phosh as a de, and for the apps I was thinking mostly linux programs and maybe some android apps with waydroid, but I'll also try this!
I tried it a few times, did not work for me, I've had android emus on windows work fine, I'm pretty sure I followed the setup correctly, but I couldn't get apps to launch.
If you run something like Debian Bookworm, or based on it, you can apt install plasma-bigscreen to run the older version. New version you likely need to compile depending on your distro
I've been following this since the initial Newpipe Linux flatpak release. I find it more exciting than Waydroid even though Waydroid is way more functional today
Just to point out a potential misunderstanding: NewPipe devs did not use ATL to move it over, the developers of ATL chose NewPipe as the first app and extend the tool around getting more features of NewPipe to work
There's some good potential here for sure. I use a project called Sober to run Roblox on my Linux PC, which runs the Android version. It works incredibly well.
La votation du 28 septembre arrive à grand pas, alors faisons vite un tour du sujet le plus numérique de cette fournée : l'Identité électronique. Qu'est-ce que l'e-ID, comment cela fonctionne et quels sont les points importants à retenir avant la votation
La votation du 28 septembre arrive à grand pas, alors faisons vite un tour du sujet le plus numérique de cette fournée : l’Identité électronique.
Qu’est-ce que l’e-ID, comment cela fonctionne et quels sont les points importants à retenir avant la votation ? HTTPS-VD vous a préparé son top 5 des infos à connaître pour voter avec les bonnes clefs en main.
Nous vous invitons également à nous rejoindre le jeudi 4 septembre 2025 à 19h30 à la SDMB, rue Caroline 16, pour une soirée d’information sur l’e-ID et son fonctionnement expliqué par des experts du domaine.
Petit rappel avant propos : une identité électronique n’est ni un identifiant, ni votre login, ne remplace pas vos mots de passe. Une e-ID sert uniquement à vérifier une (ou plusieurs) information précise à votre sujet une unique fois auprès d’un prestataire. Cela correspond à montrer votre carte d’identité, mais pas à utiliser une clef.
1. Maître de son identité
Le système d’identité électronique (et non identification, la nuance est importante) est programmé pour être sous le contrôle complet de l’utilisateur (= titulaire). L’application Swiyu, fournie par la Confédération, enregistrera vos informations uniquement sur votre téléphone et nulle part ailleurs. La Confédération n’intervient que pour valider ces informations et fournir un certificat d’authenticité ; elle agit donc en tant que garant de la véracité de celles-ci (Art. 2, al. 3 LeID.
Seul l’utilisateur peut valider quel prestataire de services (= vérificateur) peut vérifier ses informations. De plus, à tout moment, s’il a le moindre soupçon qu’un prestataire utilise le service d’e-ID de manière non conforme, il peut signaler le fait aux autorités, qui doivent immédiatement déclencher une enquête (audit). L’utilisateur reste donc en permanence maître de la manière dont ses informations sont vérifiées (Art. 3 LeID).
Enfin, la loi précise explicitement que l’e-ID est facultatif. Tout prestataire qui en fait usage doit, en parallèle, avoir une solution équivalente pour qui ne souhaite pas l’utiliser. Il y aura donc toujours une alternative (Art. 25 LeID).
2. Minimisation des données échangées
Les données d’identité sont stockées uniquement sur votre appareil auquel les prestataires de services n’ont pas accès. (Art. 8, al. 2 LeID) Seule sont transmises les informations validées par le titulaire et confirmées par la Confédération, sous forme codée (ou non codée, si le titulaire le choisit). Pour pouvoir utiliser le système d’e-ID, le prestataire doit effectuer une demande à la Confédération, justifiant chaque information pour laquelle il requiert une vérification (Art. 32 LeID). De plus, la vérification est automatiquement effacée après 90 jours (Art. 27 LeID), ce qui limite fortement les possibilités d’usage par les prestataires.
La Confédération ne saura en revanche pas comment le titulaire utilise son e-ID, pas plus que ce n’est le cas aujourd’hui avec la carte d’identité. (Art. 10, al. 2 LeID)
3. Décentralisée (l’identité est dans votre téléphone)
La Confédération se basera uniquement sur les registres existants pour certifier l’identité du titulaire de l’e-ID. Les informations spécifiques à l’e-ID ne seront utilisables qu’à partir de l’appareil de l’utilisateur. Une fois l’identité validée, le système est quasiment autonome vis-à-vis de l’État, ce qui lui limite drastiquement les possibilité de surveillance. Il s’agit donc d’un outil très décentralisé. Cela augmente également fortement la sécurité de l’outil, puisque si un utilisateur voit sont appareil infiltré, il sera la seule victime et les autres titulaires d’e-ID ne seront pas affectés. (eid.admin.ch/fr/technologie-f)
L’application est en revanche uniquement prévue pour les deux principaux distributeurs (Apple store et Google Play store) pour le moment. Les développeurs doivent encore trouver un moyen de s’affranchir des ces distributeurs pour rendre Swiyu accessible depuis des plateformes entièrement libres. (Pour participer : github.com/swiyu-admin-ch)
4. Non obligatoire
La loi encadrant l’e-ID est claire : son utilisation n’est pas obligatoire (Art. 25 LeID). Les organismes devront toujours proposer un autre moyen de vérifier l’identité d’une personne, même si ce service alternatif peut parfois être assorti d’un émolument (Art. 31 LeID). L’e-ID ne remplace donc pas les pratiques actuelles, mais affectera surtout les démarches déjà fortement numérisées (achats en ligne, signatures de contrat à distance, etc.). Les commerçants de quartier continueront donc à demander votre carte d’identité pour vérifier votre âge. Son déploiement plus large prendra du temps en raison des contraintes légales strictes, mais justes, qui garantissent une utilisation conforme à nos lois.
5. Code source ouvert
Enfin, la loi prévoit que le code de l’e-ID soit développé en open source, ce qui garantit transparence et auditabilité (Art. 12 LeID). Des exceptions juridiques restent toutefois possibles, et il sera important de rester attentif à leurs applications, même si la jurisprudence actuelle est plutôt favorable à l’ouverture complète du code. Nous sommes rassurés par la manière dont l’aspect « code source » du projet d’eID suisse est géré. Le processus se distingue par son exemplarité : le développement est ouvert aux contributions externes, la documentation est complète et accessible, et la transparence permet à chacun de vérifier et d’améliorer la solution. (swiyu-admin-ch.github.io/intro…)
Conclusion
En résumé, la nouvelle version de l’e-ID corrige avec brio les défauts de la première mouture. Si les exceptions prévues à la transparence forcent les citoyens à rester vigilants, le reste répond de manière explicites aux critiques formulées lors de la précédente votation. Le cadre légal présenté coche presque toutes les cases attendues pour un tel outil, et son aspect facultatif permet, comme avec les cartes bancaires, de toujours garder le choix du papier.
It's a Monero donation platform, so even if they were to remove your page, the donation wallet you set up for it would still be able to receive donations even without them.
What is the value add of this product? The donors and recipients still need to set up a Monero wallet and everything to use the service. A recipient may just as well instead use any other means (social media, etc.) to announce that they are accepting Monero donations at xyz address.
Mainly goal setting and tracking. You could say, for example, that your goal is to raise 50 Monero, and each donation to that address will show up on the site as adding to it, and the donor can leave you a message if they wish.
It allows everybody to see exactly how close you are to your 50 Monero goal, etc.
It's a Monero donation platform, so even if they were to remove your page, the donation wallet you set up for it would still be able to receive donations even without them.
When it's Visa, Mastercard, and the banks and governments responsible for fiat money itself who are cracking down, you're going to get exactly the "feature parity" you're asking for anywhere that is using that money. It's time to start looking into alternative currencies if you want to escape their control.
"Monero, it's not just for criminals anymore" (or maybe it is, because they're trying to make us all criminals if we don't adhere to their definition of "moral purity")
GNU Taler is a payment method designed to provide an unparalleled level of privacy to the payer. Related issues: #1062 and #1268. Implementation guide: create sql/branch.sql add a 'taler' value to ...
I hate catbox. I can't see images posted via catbox because for some reason catbox is very actively and aggressively bans VPNs. Yeah, you heard that right: they ban VPNs, not only for posting, even for viewing! I managed to find one VPN server that worked well... for few weeks. Until it got banned as well. Someone once said catbox is a honeypot. Idk about that, but their VPN policy is definitely honeypot-tier.
Added: What's even more funny - imgur also used to ban VPNs, but my current server, at the moment I picked it I choose by criteria that both imgur and catbox and some third service should work, and few weeks later imgur still works while catbox don't, which means catbox bans VPNs more aggressively than imgur! Really makes you hmmmm.
Added: After reading SatyrSack reply I'm not sure anymore. Maybe it was too rash to blame Catbox. It's unclear who or what is responsible for the block, maybe neither the source nor the destination.
I don't know what VPN you use, but i have zero issues running Proton VPN and accessing catbox. Maybe some VPN nodes are used to attack Catbox and they are temp banned?
I'll be honest, I don't mind a free file host banning VPNs. Yes, VPNs have tons of legitimate uses, but they also have illegitimate uses that (what I understand to be) a one-man team is likely not prepared to deal with. They already have to deal with CSAM getting uploaded as it is.
but they also have illegitimate uses that (what I understand to be) a one-man team is likely not prepared to deal with
This would be somewhat believable excuse if they only blocked uploading/posting under VPNs. But they block viewing under VPNs as well, which you only do if your sole purpose is logging IP addresses of viewers. In this scenario catbox images posted to Lemmy for example, they don't only reveal your IP the moment they are loaded when you scroll your feed, they also associate it with the site from where the request was initiated (your Lemmy instance).
This would be somewhat believable excuse if they only blocked uploading/posting under VPNs.
With CSAM, you want to block uploading and downloading, because both are problematic for a host.
In this scenario catbox images posted to Lemmy for example, they don't only reveal your IP the moment they are loaded when you scroll your feed
I'm 99% sure it doesn't work that way. The Lemmy instance caches a preview image for posted links. But scrolling past without clicking a link will not expose your IP to Catbox unless you have an auto-preview setting enabled that opens/caches every link you scroll past automatically, which I don't believe is enabled by default.
With CSAM, you want to block uploading and downloading, because both are problematic for a host.
At that point, if such content is already posted there and available for download, it doesn't matter if it is only allowed to be downloaded via clearnet or VPNs as well. Blocking VPNs doesn't make any difference here.
I’m 99% sure it doesn’t work that way. The Lemmy instance caches a preview image for posted links. But scrolling past without clicking a link will not expose your IP to Catbox unless you have an auto-preview setting enabled that opens/caches every link you scroll past automatically, which I don’t believe is enabled by default.
I've seen a debate regarding lemmynsfw with some people asking to turn off caching/proxying for images. I don't know what's their current status on this, but on my instance even thumbnails were not visible for catbox images. I'm not sure if it's disabled or it's the instance server itself having trouble accessing catbox.
At that point, if such content is already posted there and available for download, it doesn't matter if it is only allowed to be downloaded via clearnet or VPNs as well. Blocking VPNs doesn't make any difference here.
My understanding is that it's for tracking/reporting purposes, and to mitigate future offenses by banning those IPs. You can report an IP to an ISP for CSAM violations, but it's not as useful when the user's on a VPN.
I've seen a debate regarding lemmynsfw with some people asking to turn off caching/proxying for images. I don't know what's their current status on this, but on my instance even thumbnails were not visible for catbox images. I'm not sure if it's disabled or it's the instance server itself having trouble accessing catbox.
Yeah, I've also noticed that Catbox links don't seem to generate previews on Mbin, as well, so I suspect that may be a Catbox block of some sort. That's interesting... I wonder if that causes a Lemmy instance to attempt a live preview instead of giving you a cached one. If so, that seems like something that probably shouldn't be in place, IMO.
My understanding is that it’s for tracking/reporting purposes, and to mitigate future offenses by banning those IPs. You can report an IP to an ISP for CSAM violations, but it’s not as useful when the user’s on a VPN.
Don't think even the most extreme actors go that far, link could be opened accidentally, etc...
Anyway, from what another poster here linked, it looks like Catbox might actually not be banning any VPNs at all on its own, this might be some kind of middleware/routing infrastructure issue.
Do you use Verizon for Internet? It's been my experience that the only way I can open catbox links is if I'm not connected solely to Verizon's network.
Their FAQ lists multiple reasons that various countries, ISPs, etc. block CatBox, and using a VPN is often mentioned as the solution. Here is an archive of their FAQ that you should be able to read from any connection:
Thanks, this is surprising! I assumed my VPN wouldn't ever block anything, because I've never seen that before, and thus the block was Catbox's fault, but from what they write in their FAQ I start to question this. Maybe there is some large scale intermediary/middleware/mitm that make this happen. Idk, this is the first time I see anything like this. The server I'm currently using is in Switzerland, but I've also had those blocks with multiple VPN servers in other EU countries.
This is phenomenal, I've been switching through countless EU countries and servers, and catbox just kept becoming inaccessible in every single one day by day, and even after abandoning Proton VPN altogether and moving to obscure VPS provider with my self-hosted VPN, it worked for like 2 days, and now it's blocked again.
I often use litter.catbox.moe (auto-deleting) because I can upload via command line. But it's so slow sometimes that it's unusable for e.g. including images in comments. Is that also the case for catbox.moe proper?
When I click on catbox.moe images on Lemmy, I don't see a difference between being on a VPN, my WiFi at home, on mobile data oder a random Hotspot. It either loads like back in the days when we had dial up connections or in >90% of the cases I get a connection timeout. It's a pita to the point that I check the link on Lemmy before clicking on it and have a very hard time to not justify instantly down voting the poster for using that service.
::: spoiler Key Findings 1. Geopolitical Events Trigger Unprecedented DDoS Campaigns Expand: Major political events drove increased DDoS activity, evidenced by attack count spikes that coincide with these occurrences. These events saw hacktivist groups launching up to double the normal number of attacks in short timeframes. 2. Botnet-Driven Attacks Dominate with Increased Sophistication Expand: Botnet-driven attacks are getting longer, more frequent, and are employing multiple attack vectors to avoid mitigation. They are targeting known vulnerabilities in IoT devices, servers, routers, and more. 3. NoName057(16) Maintains Dominance Among Familiar Threat Actors: Well-known hacktivist and attack groups, such as NoName057(16), are launching more attacks across the globe while leveraging several attack vectors. 4. New Threat Actors Emerge with DDoS-as-a-Service Capabilities: Emerging attack groups like DieNet and Keymous+ are leveraging DDoS-for-hire infrastructure to launch DDoS-as-a-service campaigns, lowering the barrier to entry and expanding the threat landscape. 5. Global DDOS Attack Volume High with Regional Variations: With more than 8 million recorded attacks globally in the first half of 2025, DDoS attack volume remains massive. The attacks also show sustained intensity, reaching speeds of 3.12 Tbps and 1.5 Gpps. :::
DDoS attacks are no longer just a nuisance, they’re a weapon of geopolitical influence. In the first half of 2025 alone, more than 8 million attacks were recorded globally, with threat actors leveraging AI, botnets, and DDoS-for-hire services to launch increasingly sophisticated and sustained campaigns.
Understanding network dependencies matters for digital sovereignty, resilience, and security.
Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA distribute government-bound traffic across multiple operators and exchange points, creating greater resilience against technical failures and geopolitical shocks.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Funnily enough I've been watching through Dark Matter and Alien: Earth and last night after watching an episode of each back to back realized that we're probably not far off from being directly ruled by corporations after all our governments fall, which is a central theme in each show.
I don’t think our governments are going to fall. I do think they are however extensions of corporations and over time are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from business.
I haven't read the books, but from what I understand, fans of the books generally don't care for the show because they think they changed too much. I think season 2 was a little slow but 1 and 3 have been great.
I'll give it another try once I forget most of the book, otherwise it's hard not to compare. I loved the books so anything different is hard to digest.
I haven't delved too deeply into the criticism so far all I know it could be baseless "internet complaints" like The Last of Us where people were upset that the girl playing the teenage character "wasn't attractive enough."
Thats just the first round of IP law vs AI Corpos. I'm really interested if this process will fix the broken copyright system or fix the AI Corpos - one of the two has to give.
McCann, 37, who has a background as a visual designer, started experimenting with AI to see if it could boost his creativity and “bring some of my lyrics to life.” Last month, he signed with independent record label Hallwood Media after one of his tracks racked up 3 million streams, in what’s billed as the first time a music label has inked a contract with an AI music creator.
I wish the Tunisian people well: they've had better-quality democracy, enough to taste their real rights, & hope they take all the wisdoms/insights of Ghandi, & Nelson Mandela, & systematically force the earning of their civil-rights..
::: spoiler 12 Key Findings 1. Age assurance can be done in Australia privately, efficiently and effectively: Age assurance can be done in Australia – our analysis of age assurance systems in the context of Australia demonstrates how they can be private, robust and effective. There is a plethora of choice available for providers of age-restricted goods, content, services, venues or spaces to select the most appropriate systems for their use case with reference to emerging international standards for age assurance. 2. No substantial technological limitations preventing its implementation to meet policy goals: Our evaluation did not reveal any substantial technological limitations that would prevent age assurance systems being used in response to age-related eligibility requirements established by policy makers. We identified careful, critical thinking by providers on the development and deployment of age assurance systems, considering efficacy, privacy, data and security concerns. Some systems were easier for initial implementation and use than others, but the systems of all technology providers with a technology readiness level (TRL) 7 or above were eventually capable of integration to a user journey. 3. Provider claims have been independently validated against the project’s evaluation criteria: We found that the practice statements provided by age assurance providers with a TRL of 7 or above fairly reflected the technological capabilities of their products, processes or services (to the extent applicable to the Trial’s evaluation criteria). Some of the practice statements provided have needed to be clarified or developed during the course of the Trial, but we observed that they offer a useful option for transparency of the capabilities of the available age assurance systems. Those with a TRL below 7 will need further analysis when their systems mature. 4. A wide range of approaches exist, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all contexts: We found a plethora of approaches that fit different use cases in different ways, but we did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments. The range of possibilities across the Trial participants demonstrate a rich and rapidly evolving range of services which can be tailored and effective depending on each specified context of use. 5. We found a dynamic, innovative and evolving age assurance service sector: We found a vibrant, creative and innovative age assurance service sector with both technologically advanced and deployed solutions and a pipeline of new technologies transitioning from research to minimum viable product to testing and deployment stages indicating an evolving choice and future opportunities for developers. We found private-sector investment and opportunities for growth within the age assurance services sector. 6. We found robust, appropriate and secure data handling practices: We found robust understanding of and internal policy decisions regarding the handling of personal information by Trial participants. The privacy policies and practice statements collated for the Trial demonstrate a strong commitment to privacy by design principles, with consideration of what data was to be collected, stored, shared and then disposed of. Separating age assurance services from those of relying parties was useful as Trial participants providing age assurance services more clearly only used data for the necessary and consented purpose of providing an age assurance result. 7. Systems performed broadly consistently across demographic groups, including Indigenous populations: The systems under test performed broadly consistently across demographic groups assessed and despite an acknowledged deficit in training age analysis systems with data about Indigenous populations, we found no substantial difference in the outcomes for First Nations and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and other multi-cultural communities using the age assurance systems. We found some systems performed better than others, but overall variances across race did not deviate by more than recognised tolerances. 8. There is scope to enhance usability, risk management and system interoperability: We found opportunities for technological improvement including improving ease of use for the average person and enhancing the management of risk in age assurance systems. This could include through one-way blind access to verification of government documents, enabling connection to data holder services (like digital wallets) or improving the handling of a child’s digital footprint as examples. 9. Parental control tools can be effective but may constrain children’s digital participation and evolving autonomy: The Trial found that both parental control and consent systems can be done and can be effective, but they serve different purposes. Parental control systems are pre-configured and ongoing but may fail to adapt to the evolving capacities of children including potential risks to their digital privacy as they grow and mature, particularly through adolescence. Parental consent mechanisms prompt active engagement between children and their parents at key decision points, potentially supporting informed access. 10. Systems generally align with cybersecurity best practice, but vigilance is required: We found that the systems were generally secure and consistent with information security standards, with developers actively addressing known attack vectors including AI-generated spoofing and forgeries. However, the rapidly evolving threat environment means that these systems – while presently fairly robust – cannot be considered infallible. Ongoing monitoring and improvement will help maintain their effectiveness over time. Similarly, continued attention to privacy compliance will support long-term trust and accountability. 11. Unnecessary data retention may occur in apparent anticipation of future regulatory needs: We found some concerning evidence that in the absence of specific guidance, service providers were apparently over-anticipating the eventual needs of regulators about providing personal information for future investigations. Some providers were found to be building tools to enable regulators, law enforcement or Coroners to retrace the actions taken by individuals to verify their age which could lead to increased risk of privacy breaches due to unnecessary and disproportionate collection and retention of data. 12. Providers are aligning to emerging international standards around age assurance: The standards-based approach adopted by the Trial, including through the ISO/IEC 27566 Series [Note 1], the IEEE 2089.1 [Note 2] and the ISO/IEC 25000 [Note 3] series (the Product Quality Model) all provide a strong basis for the development of accreditation of conformity assessment and subsequent certification of individual age assurance providers in accordance with Australia’s standards and conformance infrastructure. :::
Australia’s government trial of age‑assurance tech to keep under‑16s off social media says social media age checks can be done, despite errors and privacy risks
::: spoiler 12 Key Findings 1. Age assurance can be done in Australia privately, efficiently and effectively: Age assurance can be done in Australia – our analysis of age assurance systems in the context of Australia demonstrates how they can be private, robust and effective. There is a plethora of choice available for providers of age-restricted goods, content, services, venues or spaces to select the most appropriate systems for their use case with reference to emerging international standards for age assurance. 2. No substantial technological limitations preventing its implementation to meet policy goals: Our evaluation did not reveal any substantial technological limitations that would prevent age assurance systems being used in response to age-related eligibility requirements established by policy makers. We identified careful, critical thinking by providers on the development and deployment of age assurance systems, considering efficacy, privacy, data and security concerns. Some systems were easier for initial implementation and use than others, but the systems of all technology providers with a technology readiness level (TRL) 7 or above were eventually capable of integration to a user journey. 3. Provider claims have been independently validated against the project’s evaluation criteria: We found that the practice statements provided by age assurance providers with a TRL of 7 or above fairly reflected the technological capabilities of their products, processes or services (to the extent applicable to the Trial’s evaluation criteria). Some of the practice statements provided have needed to be clarified or developed during the course of the Trial, but we observed that they offer a useful option for transparency of the capabilities of the available age assurance systems. Those with a TRL below 7 will need further analysis when their systems mature. 4. A wide range of approaches exist, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all contexts: We found a plethora of approaches that fit different use cases in different ways, but we did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments. The range of possibilities across the Trial participants demonstrate a rich and rapidly evolving range of services which can be tailored and effective depending on each specified context of use. 5. We found a dynamic, innovative and evolving age assurance service sector: We found a vibrant, creative and innovative age assurance service sector with both technologically advanced and deployed solutions and a pipeline of new technologies transitioning from research to minimum viable product to testing and deployment stages indicating an evolving choice and future opportunities for developers. We found private-sector investment and opportunities for growth within the age assurance services sector. 6. We found robust, appropriate and secure data handling practices: We found robust understanding of and internal policy decisions regarding the handling of personal information by Trial participants. The privacy policies and practice statements collated for the Trial demonstrate a strong commitment to privacy by design principles, with consideration of what data was to be collected, stored, shared and then disposed of. Separating age assurance services from those of relying parties was useful as Trial participants providing age assurance services more clearly only used data for the necessary and consented purpose of providing an age assurance result. 7. Systems performed broadly consistently across demographic groups, including Indigenous populations: The systems under test performed broadly consistently across demographic groups assessed and despite an acknowledged deficit in training age analysis systems with data about Indigenous populations, we found no substantial difference in the outcomes for First Nations and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and other multi-cultural communities using the age assurance systems. We found some systems performed better than others, but overall variances across race did not deviate by more than recognised tolerances. 8. There is scope to enhance usability, risk management and system interoperability: We found opportunities for technological improvement including improving ease of use for the average person and enhancing the management of risk in age assurance systems. This could include through one-way blind access to verification of government documents, enabling connection to data holder services (like digital wallets) or improving the handling of a child’s digital footprint as examples. 9. Parental control tools can be effective but may constrain children’s digital participation and evolving autonomy: The Trial found that both parental control and consent systems can be done and can be effective, but they serve different purposes. Parental control systems are pre-configured and ongoing but may fail to adapt to the evolving capacities of children including potential risks to their digital privacy as they grow and mature, particularly through adolescence. Parental consent mechanisms prompt active engagement between children and their parents at key decision points, potentially supporting informed access. 10. Systems generally align with cybersecurity best practice, but vigilance is required: We found that the systems were generally secure and consistent with information security standards, with developers actively addressing known attack vectors including AI-generated spoofing and forgeries. However, the rapidly evolving threat environment means that these systems – while presently fairly robust – cannot be considered infallible. Ongoing monitoring and improvement will help maintain their effectiveness over time. Similarly, continued attention to privacy compliance will support long-term trust and accountability. 11. Unnecessary data retention may occur in apparent anticipation of future regulatory needs: We found some concerning evidence that in the absence of specific guidance, service providers were apparently over-anticipating the eventual needs of regulators about providing personal information for future investigations. Some providers were found to be building tools to enable regulators, law enforcement or Coroners to retrace the actions taken by individuals to verify their age which could lead to increased risk of privacy breaches due to unnecessary and disproportionate collection and retention of data. 12. Providers are aligning to emerging international standards around age assurance: The standards-based approach adopted by the Trial, including through the ISO/IEC 27566 Series [Note 1], the IEEE 2089.1 [Note 2] and the ISO/IEC 25000 [Note 3] series (the Product Quality Model) all provide a strong basis for the development of accreditation of conformity assessment and subsequent certification of individual age assurance providers in accordance with Australia’s standards and conformance infrastructure. :::
This document presents the official report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial, offering a comprehensive overview of its findings, methodologies and key observations.
Kenya’s success in the fight against deadly sleeping sickness marks a milestone in the African continent's battle to eradicate neglected tropical diseases.
::: spoiler 12 Key Findings 1. Age assurance can be done in Australia privately, efficiently and effectively: Age assurance can be done in Australia – our analysis of age assurance systems in the context of Australia demonstrates how they can be private, robust and effective. There is a plethora of choice available for providers of age-restricted goods, content, services, venues or spaces to select the most appropriate systems for their use case with reference to emerging international standards for age assurance. 2. No substantial technological limitations preventing its implementation to meet policy goals: Our evaluation did not reveal any substantial technological limitations that would prevent age assurance systems being used in response to age-related eligibility requirements established by policy makers. We identified careful, critical thinking by providers on the development and deployment of age assurance systems, considering efficacy, privacy, data and security concerns. Some systems were easier for initial implementation and use than others, but the systems of all technology providers with a technology readiness level (TRL) 7 or above were eventually capable of integration to a user journey. 3. Provider claims have been independently validated against the project’s evaluation criteria: We found that the practice statements provided by age assurance providers with a TRL of 7 or above fairly reflected the technological capabilities of their products, processes or services (to the extent applicable to the Trial’s evaluation criteria). Some of the practice statements provided have needed to be clarified or developed during the course of the Trial, but we observed that they offer a useful option for transparency of the capabilities of the available age assurance systems. Those with a TRL below 7 will need further analysis when their systems mature. 4. A wide range of approaches exist, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all contexts: We found a plethora of approaches that fit different use cases in different ways, but we did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments. The range of possibilities across the Trial participants demonstrate a rich and rapidly evolving range of services which can be tailored and effective depending on each specified context of use. 5. We found a dynamic, innovative and evolving age assurance service sector: We found a vibrant, creative and innovative age assurance service sector with both technologically advanced and deployed solutions and a pipeline of new technologies transitioning from research to minimum viable product to testing and deployment stages indicating an evolving choice and future opportunities for developers. We found private-sector investment and opportunities for growth within the age assurance services sector. 6. We found robust, appropriate and secure data handling practices: We found robust understanding of and internal policy decisions regarding the handling of personal information by Trial participants. The privacy policies and practice statements collated for the Trial demonstrate a strong commitment to privacy by design principles, with consideration of what data was to be collected, stored, shared and then disposed of. Separating age assurance services from those of relying parties was useful as Trial participants providing age assurance services more clearly only used data for the necessary and consented purpose of providing an age assurance result. 7. Systems performed broadly consistently across demographic groups, including Indigenous populations: The systems under test performed broadly consistently across demographic groups assessed and despite an acknowledged deficit in training age analysis systems with data about Indigenous populations, we found no substantial difference in the outcomes for First Nations and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and other multi-cultural communities using the age assurance systems. We found some systems performed better than others, but overall variances across race did not deviate by more than recognised tolerances. 8. There is scope to enhance usability, risk management and system interoperability: We found opportunities for technological improvement including improving ease of use for the average person and enhancing the management of risk in age assurance systems. This could include through one-way blind access to verification of government documents, enabling connection to data holder services (like digital wallets) or improving the handling of a child’s digital footprint as examples. 9. Parental control tools can be effective but may constrain children’s digital participation and evolving autonomy: The Trial found that both parental control and consent systems can be done and can be effective, but they serve different purposes. Parental control systems are pre-configured and ongoing but may fail to adapt to the evolving capacities of children including potential risks to their digital privacy as they grow and mature, particularly through adolescence. Parental consent mechanisms prompt active engagement between children and their parents at key decision points, potentially supporting informed access. 10. Systems generally align with cybersecurity best practice, but vigilance is required: We found that the systems were generally secure and consistent with information security standards, with developers actively addressing known attack vectors including AI-generated spoofing and forgeries. However, the rapidly evolving threat environment means that these systems – while presently fairly robust – cannot be considered infallible. Ongoing monitoring and improvement will help maintain their effectiveness over time. Similarly, continued attention to privacy compliance will support long-term trust and accountability. 11. Unnecessary data retention may occur in apparent anticipation of future regulatory needs: We found some concerning evidence that in the absence of specific guidance, service providers were apparently over-anticipating the eventual needs of regulators about providing personal information for future investigations. Some providers were found to be building tools to enable regulators, law enforcement or Coroners to retrace the actions taken by individuals to verify their age which could lead to increased risk of privacy breaches due to unnecessary and disproportionate collection and retention of data. 12. Providers are aligning to emerging international standards around age assurance: The standards-based approach adopted by the Trial, including through the ISO/IEC 27566 Series [Note 1], the IEEE 2089.1 [Note 2] and the ISO/IEC 25000 [Note 3] series (the Product Quality Model) all provide a strong basis for the development of accreditation of conformity assessment and subsequent certification of individual age assurance providers in accordance with Australia’s standards and conformance infrastructure. :::
This document presents the official report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial, offering a comprehensive overview of its findings, methodologies and key observations.
It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
The Trump administration said it had taken a 10% stake in Intel, President Donald Trump’s latest extraordinary move to exert federal control over business.
China's internal market is far more cutthroat and "capitalist" than that of the USA. And less regulated. And less monopolized, except for a few services which, ahem, are mandated (WeeChat, yes).
That was their "unique path", to move all hierarchical stuff into political entities. It look interesting on a large scale, from more "peasant-oriented" communism, kinda changing the initial Marxist picture of worker-capital relations, to this.
An actual city wall existed on the street from 1653 to 1699. During the 18th century, the location served as a slave market and securities trading site, and from 1703 onward
So, I haven't checked project 2025, but there is a Christian nationalist plan that wants to take over everything called Seven Mountains Mandate. You can just read the link, but the idea is to take over what they consider all major parts of society, including business and have a Christian Dominion.
Wait. The point of the unbelievable amount of telemetry you can't even disable was to collect info in situations like this. Right? Why is there telemetry if they have to ask?
Edit: title of the article is a bit misleading, as I obviously commented before reading the article.
The "another" company they are in contacting is Phison, the manufacturer of thr affected controllers, so it doesn't sound as bad as from the title
They have received no official reports, and cannot reproduce the issue. I'm betting this is a case of a couple drives failing and then everyone screaming at MS without any verification.
I wanted to post this yesterday, but my instance was having issues the entire day. Apologies if this is a repost.
Shi allegedly sent a message to Oppo saying that he was working to “collect as much information as possible” before starting his job. And he searched the internet for terms like “how to wipe out macbook” and “Can somebody see if I’ve opened a file on a shared drive?” from his Apple-issued MacBook before leaving the company.
For someone who is presumably pretty intelligent, this is pretty dumb.
Apple is suing a former employee on the Apple Watch team, Dr. Chen Shi, who left to join Oppo, alleging that he “conspired to steal Apple’s trade secrets relating to Apple Watch.”
And he searched the internet for terms like “how to wipe out macbook” and “Can somebody see if I’ve opened a file on a shared drive?” from his Apple-issued MacBook before leaving the company.
He now heads up a team working on sensing technology at Oppo — which Apple says it learned because of “messages he left on his Apple-issued work iPhone.” In his resignation letter to Apple, Shi said he was leaving “due to personal and family reasons.” Via that iPhone, Apple also says it found messages from Oppo demonstrating that it “encouraged, approved, and agreed to Dr. Shi’s plan to collect Apple’s proprietary information before leaving Apple.”
Why would either of these companies hire someone this stupid in a pivotal role?
Sounds damning, however the evidence will need to be presented. Apple’s legal team has a tendency to present and open-and-shut case to the media but it’s very much spinned in their favour.
If they just made up a bunch of accusations with paltry evidence to prove it, the scandal would make headlines. "iPhone maker found to be full of shit in court!" is clickworthy gold. I don't think your stance is very strong. Every entity tries to spin things in their favor, but you make it sound like they'd bring an empty case and they very much would not. No one starts a lawsuit they don't think they can win unless they're someone with no credibility and endless money like Elon Musk (see lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI) or oil companies going after environmental lawyers.
I politely disagree. Apple legal will most certainly make extreme accusations and throw the book at individuals as a deterrent to other staff who may be considering bringing “trade secret” knowledge with them as they leave. Which is basically turns any kind of creative solution to a tech problem into a “trade secret” 🍆in this reality of patents and intellectual property.
I suspect that this person thought they were getting away with something minor and it’s being spun into mustache-twirling supervillains as a warning to staff.
Sckharshantallas
in reply to silence7 • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
squaresinger
in reply to Sckharshantallas • • •Google, sadly, is truely dead.
I moved on to Duckduckgo, because the results really aren't worse. Aren't better either though.
like this
Maeve likes this.
NewNewAugustEast
in reply to squaresinger • • •I find them better. Most of the time. Google is needed every now and then.
DuckDuckGo gets to the point and skips the seo stuff.. Mostly.
Although at this point search is nearly useless no matter what you use.
MaggiWuerze
in reply to NewNewAugustEast • • •Scrollone
in reply to squaresinger • • •Stubb
in reply to Sckharshantallas • • •reksas
in reply to Stubb • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
muusemuuse
in reply to reksas • • •bruhduh
in reply to muusemuuse • • •mobile operating system
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)muusemuuse
in reply to bruhduh • • •reksas
in reply to muusemuuse • • •mrdown
in reply to silence7 • • •etherphon
in reply to silence7 • • •Gravitywell
in reply to silence7 • • •Yeah but really does that even matter when the top results are just ads anyway? The problem is advertising has taken over search engines and now AI makes it even less likely people "searching" for things will even bother to click off of the search website.
DMCA takedown abuse isn't anything new, this article seems like it was just due to 404 media having to deal with it, onlyfans is tangentially related and clearly just used in the headline for clickbait purposes... I really expected better of 404 media, The issue is a valid and increasingly worse one, it shouldnt need a clickbait headline. "DMCA Automation is ruining the internet" or something to that effect would have been a lot better.
This whole thing is also a scam on content creators, people arent pirating content by searching for it on google, they're finding out about websites by talking to people on discord (which itself is not searchable of course) and other such services. Anyone paying for these kind of takedown services is getting taken for a ride.
cygnus
in reply to Gravitywell • • •That's true, but if the important thing is to draw attention to this issue, this is a good way of doing it even if it's a creative interpretation of the truth.
like this
Maeve likes this.
solsangraal
in reply to silence7 • • •blames pirates in the headline
goes on to say how it's, yet again, actually an AI problem
Atherel
in reply to solsangraal • • •Dr. Moose
in reply to Atherel • • •Americans: invent a law that allows anyone to take down content online without any repercussions
Lemmy: blasted AI - ruining everything!
🤦♂️
hark
in reply to Dr. Moose • • •Dr. Moose
in reply to hark • • •hark
in reply to Dr. Moose • • •AI has been around in many forms for decades FYI
Enhanced capabilities and availability of tools make a difference. If a company gets the "brilliant" idea to "use AI" to file DMCA requests, encouraged by recent hype of AI and proliferation of many AI tools to make it easy to deploy, then it suddenly becomes a problem, hence why this article exists right now.
Dr. Moose
in reply to hark • • •But these tools were available for years at least. How do you think Youtube strikes down videos automatically by it's own since like 2012.
The issue is that again and again simpletons are yelling at the hammer instead of the guy that's smashing everything with it. This is so tiring, it makes all of us look so fucking stupid.
hark
in reply to Dr. Moose • • •Aggravationstation
in reply to solsangraal • • •blitzen
in reply to silence7 • • •Archangel1313
in reply to silence7 • • •olympicyes
in reply to silence7 • • •“We don't really review it [the list] because we are an agent for them,” Ananad said. “For the requests that we send out ourselves, usually they get reviewed, but sometimes they [clients] do a search by themselves, and they come across some content and they flag it and they're like, ‘We want this taken down.’ We don't review that because that is something that they want taken down. I'm not particularly sure about this case, but that is what happens. What we planned on doing was also reviewing these but it's usually not very fruitful, because the user is very sure they want that claim. And even if we say, ‘Hey, we don't think you should do that,’ they're like, ‘We want to do it. Just do it because I'm paying you for this.’ And if we just say, do it yourself, that kind of takes away the business from us. So that is basically how it works.”
What?
like this
Maeve e onewithoutaname like this.
nullroot
in reply to olympicyes • • •Devolution
in reply to silence7 • • •manxu
in reply to silence7 • • •DudeImMacGyver
in reply to silence7 • • •like this
lystopad e HeerlijkeDrop like this.
BlameTheAntifa
in reply to DudeImMacGyver • • •vacuumflower
in reply to BlameTheAntifa • • •Copyright in general is about suppressing and abusing competition, there's a little bit of difference now that the old Victorian-style copyright laws lasted as long as the author, more or less, and every legal action was taken through a court, not like these letters of happiness.
It's funny how we seem similar to the pre-WWI mood of "everything has been invented, abolish patents", I wonder if the "pre-WWI" part is too going to rhyme. Hope that not, of course, but most of the innovation seems to be in direct or indirect warfare (all of big tech is honestly that). And there's one nation whose elites seem to make weird destructive moves. And which is on the down trajectory in its GDP relative to the world for the last 50 years. And which has the world's biggest military spending.
After all, humans need a reminder that for the plethora of technologies that seem like a favorable to them weapon unseen before, there are also similarly many technologies that may be unfavorable to them weapons unseen before.
Nazi Germany used radio and encryption and maneuverability and wonderful air force to achieve successes, then the other sides used radars and computers and mass modular production and MLRS'es.
Perhaps the current rotting of copyright and patent system is because the elites think they don't need more natural peaceful development. Global bloodletting usually heals that kind of ideas. Some things can only be learned on your own experience.
phutatorius
in reply to vacuumflower • • •Copyright is a surviving instance of the old system of royal warrants: monopolies granted by a monarch, usually to cronies, occasionally as a reward for some kind of good work (scientific discovery, work of art, etc).
It's a system that's full of opportunities for corruption and bureaucratic oppression, and should either be massively scaled back, or dumped entirely. It does far more harm than good.
vacuumflower
in reply to phutatorius • • •I agree, unfortunately things only keep existing when there's balance between their sides in power.
Such balance is - those benefiting from copyright have a lot to offer and threaten to those making copyright, and the other way around.
It's all military logic now. 50 years ago it could have been solved by a popular movement, now any movement really threatening copyright will have its figures murdered left and right.
mic_check_one_two
in reply to BlameTheAntifa • • •phutatorius
in reply to mic_check_one_two • • •HexesofVexes
in reply to DudeImMacGyver • • •Goodlucksil
in reply to DudeImMacGyver • • •like this
DudeImMacGyver likes this.
phutatorius
in reply to DudeImMacGyver • • •DudeImMacGyver
in reply to phutatorius • • •_druid
in reply to silence7 • • •phutatorius
in reply to _druid • • •Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's not scummy.
And as for people getting shit for free, I support a maximalist position on right of first sale: sharing what you own should be legal in all cases. If that inconveniences some mass aggregator of content, tough shit: the ease of sharing gives the lie to the notion that the aggregator adds any value, instead, they're just rent-seeking parasites.
fodor
in reply to silence7 • • •bruhduh
in reply to silence7 • • •MonkderVierte
in reply to silence7 • • •Article about piracy be like:
But props for that implementation; it's a real paywall, not only a layer triggered by some 3rd-party script.
Archive link
404 Media
2025-09-01 13:00:12
interdimensionalmeme
in reply to silence7 • • •vacuumflower
in reply to interdimensionalmeme • • •myfunnyaccountname
in reply to silence7 • • •sip
in reply to myfunnyaccountname • • •fr
mic_check_one_two
in reply to sip • • •This
black0ut
in reply to mic_check_one_two • • •Real
AceFuzzLord
in reply to black0ut • • •Your comment has been banned and you have been banned from this subreddit for < insert random inapplicable rule >. This message is automated by moderator bot. Do not reply.
Siegfried
in reply to myfunnyaccountname • • •humanoidchaos
in reply to silence7 • • •Advertising is ruining the internet.
Copyright and patent laws shouldn't even exist.
phutatorius
in reply to humanoidchaos • • •Alpha71
in reply to silence7 • • •phutatorius
in reply to silence7 • • •