Articolo interessante di Andrea Daniele Signorelli per Wired.

O almeno così la pensa Cory Doctorow, attento osservatore del settore, secondo il quale a mettere a rischio privacy e diritti è l’eccessivo potere conquistato da pochissimi colossi

E se il potere del capitalismo della sorveglianza fosse sopravvalutato? Se la vera minaccia per i diritti e la privacy di ciascuno di noi fosse molto più a valle e la tecnologia c’entrasse solo fino a un certo punto? Prima di tutto, facciamo un passo indietro: con “capitalismo della sorveglianza” – termine reso celebre dalla sociologa Shoshana Zuboff tramite il suo omonimo saggio, pubblicato in Italia da Luiss University Press – si intende quel sistema tecnologico che permette di estrarre dati relativi alle azioni che compiamo sui vari social network, motori di ricerca, piattaforme di streaming, siti di e-commerce e molto altro.

Tutte queste informazioni, una volta aggregate, possono rivelare le nostre preferenze d’acquisto e anche i nostri orientamenti politici, sessuali, religiosi. In poche parole, come rivelò una celeberrima ricerca, permettono a Facebook di conoscerci meglio del nostro migliore amico. E questo anche perché, tramite le nostre azioni, riveliamo ai colossi della Silicon Valley ciò che, magari, non riveleremmo a nessun altro.

I dati estratti dagli utenti, però, non hanno valore di per sé. Lo acquistano nel momento in cui vengono utilizzati per formulare ipotesi e previsioni su ciò che le persone potrebbero acquistare o desiderare in futuro. La costante e pervasiva raccolta dati consente a queste aziende di vendere a terzi previsioni estremamente precise, diventando così strumenti indispensabili per le strategie commerciali delle altre aziende.

Secondo Zuboff, l’influenza che il capitalismo della sorveglianza esercita sulle nostre azioni e decisioni è tale da arrivare a toglierci ciò che lei chiama “il diritto al tempo futuro”, cioè il diritto di decidere da soli cosa fare del nostro domani. In poche parole, Google, Facebook, Amazon e gli altri colossi ci priverebbero almeno parzialmente del nostro libero arbitrio.

Continua su Wired

What is Lemmy?

Lemmy is a self-hosted social link aggregation and discussion platform. It is completely free and open, and not controlled by any company. This means that there is no advertising, tracking, or secret algorithms. Content is organized into communities, so it is easy to subscribe to topics that you are interested in, and ignore others. Voting is used to bring the most interesting items to the top.

Changes

This is a smaller bugfix release, with the following changes:

Lemmy

• Don't change encoding style in clean_url_params.
• Fix for federation last_successful_id.
• Fixing featured_local trigger.
• Fix postres TLS connection.

Lemmy-UI

• Fix for fetch page title.
• Fix create post focus resets.
• Make media uploads viewable only on your own profile.
• Fixing an auto-download bug.
• Regenerating lemmy-ui themes.

Full Changelog

• Lemmy Backend
• Lemmy-UI

Upgrade instructions

Follow the upgrade instructions for ansible or docker.

If you need help with the upgrade, you can ask in our support forum or on the Matrix Chat.

Thanks to everyone

We'd like to thank our many contributors and users of Lemmy for coding, translating, testing, and helping find and fix bugs. We're glad many people find it useful and enjoyable enough to contribute.

Support development

We (@dessalines and @nutomic) have been working full-time on Lemmy for over three years. This is largely thanks to support from NLnet foundation, as well as donations from individual users.

If you like using Lemmy, and want to make sure that we will always be available to work full time building it, consider donating to support its development. A recurring donation is the best way to ensure that open-source software like Lemmy can stay independent and alive, and helps us grow our little developer co-op to support more full-time developers.

• Liberapay (preferred option)
• Open Collective
• Patreon
• Cryptocurrency (scroll to bottom of page)

As soon as Apple announced its plans to inject generative AI into the iPhone, it was as good as official: The technology is now all but unavoidable. Large language models will soon lurk on most of the world’s smartphones, generating images and text in messaging and email apps. AI has already colonized web search, appearing in Google and Bing. OpenAI, the $80 billion start-up that has partnered with Apple and Microsoft, feels ubiquitous; the auto-generated products of its ChatGPTs and DALL-Es are everywhere. And for a growing number of consumers, that’s a problem.

Rarely has a technology risen—or been forced—into prominence amid such controversy and consumer anxiety. Certainly, some Americans are excited about AI, though a majority said in a recent survey, for instance, that they are concerned AI will increase unemployment; in another, three out of four said they believe it will be abused to interfere with the upcoming presidential election. And many AI products have failed to impress. The launch of Google’s “AI Overview” was a disaster; the search giant’s new bot cheerfully told users to add glue to pizza and that potentially poisonous mushrooms were safe to eat. Meanwhile, OpenAI has been mired in scandal, incensing former employees with a controversial nondisclosure agreement and allegedly ripping off one of the world’s most famous actors for a voice-assistant product. Thus far, much of the resistance to the spread of AI has come from watchdog groups, concerned citizens, and creators worried about their livelihood. Now a consumer backlash to the technology has begun to unfold as well—so much so that a market has sprung up to capitalize on it.

Obligatory "fuck 99.9999% of all AI use-cases, the people who make them, and the techbros that push them."