this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
704 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
77164 readers
2528 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did you read the article? It says that making AI training easier is a key purpose of these changes.
Why should any of us approve of making things easier for technofascists?
Did I say you should approve of it? I'm just explaining why it comes as no surprise to me.
Why do you presume that all AI advancement is purely by technofascists?
The kind of "AI advancement" that requires stripping away privacy rights is definitely done by technofascists.
And my point was they’re already doing this in the face of regulation.
See, my first thought would be to crack down on the tech parasites that are ruining out society instead of changing the law to accommodate them. But I'm just a dumb American who lives in a place where corporations are allowed to do whatever they want including killing whistleblowers, but I'm sure that the fascist parties taking power in Europe won't do that.
Sounds like the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing laws rather than the existing laws being bad.
To provide an extreme example, just because there's a wave of murders doesn't mean murder should be made legal.
Then why change the rules? The article's author seems quite convinced that this will make AI training easier.
Because they want to strip the right to privacy so they can better monetize
Naive to think the GDPR is stopping anyone now.
So again, why change the rules? If the GDPR is already ineffective there's no need to loosen it more.
Are you asking me why some in Europe want to make it legal? Because they’re already doing it, just they want to make it legal
Make sense?
If they're already doing it then no change is necessary. So why change it?
If making it legal makes it easier for them to do, then that was my original point. That's why I think they're making the change.
Because laws are supposed to have teeth and consequences There is zero doubt that everything public on the internet or otherwise is consumed and aggregated by these companies; you still don’t understand why weakening regulations benefits them?
So you are saying that weakening these regulations makes it easier for these companies to train AI on that data?
That's exactly what I've been saying all along too. I'm not sure what you think is being argued about here, or what you think I'm not understanding.
You’re the one asking questions about changing it
It’s clear that weaker regulations allow them to do more with impunity as I originally stated
No I'm not, I was explaining why I thought they changed it. You appeared to be arguing that there was some other reason, so I was asking what you thought that reason was.
As it turns out, though, you're saying they changed it for exactly the same reasons I said they were changing it. To let them more easily train AI on that data. So that leaves me wondering what exactly the point of all this was.
I suggest you revisit each response where you asked a question and let me know the count
All data on the internet is crawled and farmed. Weakening regulations doesn’t change this behaviour, just makes it legal
I wrote:
Emphasis added. I only asked questions to clarify what you were saying, since it was unclear.
Which, in turn, makes it easier to do.
If you don't think it makes it easier then we're back at square one, you don't seem to be presenting any reason why this change would be made.
So you admit that you asked questions, specifically why, then told me my answer was your answer
Peak interaction you’ve got there
GDPR is a barrier for EU companies only