Data Cake

the actual Luddites were big fans of automation technology, when it was owned and used by craftsmen. the only reason you believe otherwise is that capitalists waged a propaganda war against them

you should check out @bcmerchant.bsky.social's Blood in the Machine

In 2022, Google settled for $392 million. California sued them separately and got $93 million. They kept doing it for six years. They kept doing it until they were sued. Google will not do the right thing until they have to. They will do it until it is no longer profitable.

In 2020, Google was sued by 40 states. Between 2014 and 2020, Google tracked users' locations even after they turned off location history. Google gave us the option to withdraw permission to track and use our location data. But then they just kept doing it even after we turned it off.

GM's OnStar Guardian service collects speed, braking, acceleration data. GM sold this data to brokers like LexisNexis, regardless of whether people signed up for the OnStar service. It never occurred to them that they were selling something they didn't really have the right to sell.

Mark Zuckerberg admitted before Congress that the company builds profiles of people who have never signed up for its services. They collect massive amounts of information about individuals, regardless of whether they use their platform, people who never consented to any agreement with them.

They don’t even ask Let’s talk about the rationalizations corporations use for commercializing our data: we all consent. They show us the terms. We click “I…

Google, Meta, GM, so many companies commercialize our data without our consent. If we never consent to their terms of service, where do they get the right to monetize our data? In short, they don't. Using our data like this is not ok and illegal.
data-cake.medium.com/they-dont-ev...

Monetization of user data has been a bad idea since 1994.

They literally ruin everything they touch

Device fingerprinting is a method that combines browser settings, hardware configurations, and system attributes to create unique identifiers. That’s all companies need to identify one person in particular. Companies track us across websites and sessions using these fingerprints.

Consider how every bank and credit card company we use runs fraud detection algorithms that use our data to determine whether a specific transaction was really us. Companies invest billions into these systems. Verifying that an action matches a specific identity is the goal. That is the product.

For our data to be useful, it must come from an actual person. Companies could just simulate user data. It is so much quicker and cheaper to simulate data than to actually collect real data. But companies don’t buy simulated user profiles. Companies don’t run A/B tests on simulated user traffic.

Our data is part of us When we talk about how companies commercialize user data, we have to understand that our data is not just a technical by-product of the…

Our data is not just a technical by-product of the platforms we use. Our data is a reflection of who we are. Our publicity laws already protect the commercial value of any attributes that make a person recognizable for a commercial purpose.
data-cake.medium.com/our-data-is-...

“You wouldn’t download a car, would you?”

More #Meta data theft.

A big tech lobbying group has asked Trump to issue an Executive Order telling the DOJ to intervene in AI copyright lawsuits in favor of AI companies.

Astonishingly brazen request.

Though IMO suggests AI companies are v worried they will lose in court.

progresschamber.org/resources/wh...

They use theft as a negotiating tactic because there are rarely real consequences. It’s their opening offer, which is nothing. It’s now on everyone else to be able to stick up for themselves. That FBI warning they put at the start of movies was a bluff

Despite the headline it’s not George RR Martin personally going for them cos he’s rich and famous. It’s all of us.

The test case used his work, but it’s about the plain-as-day issue that ANY generative AI ignores and infringes copyright, by passing off.

That’s a win for basic law.

18 Anime, Manga Companies Publish Joint Statement Criticizing Use of Generative AI With Sora2 Program Kodansha, Kadokawa, Shogakukan, Square Enix, more assert case for copyright infringement

Kodansha, Kadokawa, Shogakukan, Square Enix, and 14 more Japanese companies publish a joint statement criticizing Sora2's generative AI and claiming copyright infringement

When the FBI put that Copyright Theft warning at the beginning of movies, and then made all of those anti-piracy ads, were they bluffing?

The foundation of the modern AI industry rests on the uncompensated work of people.

With respect, David, but we already have a system for commercializing creative work, even if has its flaws. AI companies stealing her work use theft as a negotiating tactic. It’s the opening offer, which is nothing. It's now on individual creators to fight back if they are to be paid for their labor

The AI companies use theft as a negotiating tactic because there are rarely real consequences. It’s their opening offer, which is nothing. It’s on everyone else to be able to stick up for themselves.

Smart meters were a bad deal When our data gets collected and commercialized when we use a social media platform or some other online service, the value of the exchange…

Electric Utility companies swindled us with Smart Meters with the same arguments and rationalization that tech companies use for commercializing user data

medium.com/@data-cake/e...

We have been convinced that this is normal. This is not normal. This is not how we handle business deals or contracts for anything else. We don't value anything strictly based on its use to its owner. Not the rights to commercialize anything else. Not even other data. Just when it's our data.

When we accept their terms, we are giving up something valuable. We shouldn't. Something is being taken from us. Something that belongs to us.

Companies recognize our rights to our data with their Terms of Service. They acknowledge that they require our permission to legally commercialize our data. They require that we consent to a legally binding contract.

Every time we click "I Agree," when we consent to let companies use our data for their own ends, we enable so much the digital economy. So many tech companies depend on our data. So many companies derive almost all of their revenue from commercializing our data.

The paradox of our times - you care enough about your health and survival to monitor yourself/sweat/exercise etc but care not a damn about giving the intimate data these devices extract to a private company that bears no responsibility for your welfare.

That’s part of the problem, your average social media user probably just thinks of it as a fancier version of Snapchat filters. When you told them that data was being sold to various entities for training facial recognition software their response was usually “I’m sure that’s not true.”

Senators Warn Saudi Arabia’s Acquisition of EA Will Be Used for ‘Foreign Influence’ ‘The proposed transaction poses a number of significant foreign influence and national security risks.’

New: senators warn that Saudi Arabia's acquisition of EA will be used for 'foreign influence'. Points to access to EA user data, AI tech, and the general direction of the company

www.404media.co/senators-war...