A Amazon? I am way more triggered about that than I should.

I disagree, I’d get one if I could use it as a second monitor! Though if you can’t navigate in the “screen”, then it could be difficult. But yeah AR definitely would make things muuuch more interesting.

I was more thinking of it being like a heads up display you know? It wouldn’t be AR at that point sure, just a screen.

Meta said in a statement that privacy was top of mind when designing the glasses. “We know if we’re going to normalize smart glasses in everyday life, privacy has to come first and be integrated into everything we do,” the company said.

Ha.

I don’t think Meta has the same idea of privacy than the people do. I mean, Meta having all the data hidden in their servers, being fed to AI and given to advertisement algorithms is privacy when the data is “anonymized” and held onto securely. Right?

I don’t think that this catches on. However, the second this is included with lenses that act as transparent screens for AR stuff, it’ll be flying off the shelves. No, not the very first model, not the second probably, but the one made by a large corporation that actually does it well.

Though tbh just the lenses / screens would do it, camera is just extra. So I actually think first they will get the lenses done and camera stuff ia added later when the rest is already commonly used.

I doubt that’s how the password is used for. More like they copy all contents of the phone and ask the password to go through encryption. The data is already there, accounts don’t matter.

This is also the reason why it’s no good to have a dead man’s switch or the like, as in a certain password just wipes everything. You’d just get arrested for destroying evidence and they continue from a copy.

Weird that people argue about this. If the value of a company is being talked about, then stocks is what people generally refer to. Now, if you’d specify and talk about some other value, then sure, but if only “value” is being mentioned I see no reason to think it would mean something else than stocks.

Good breakdown on this in arstechnica:

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1991469

In a statement emailed to Ars Technica, Cox Media Group said that its advertising tools include “third-party vendor products powered by data sets sourced from users by various social media and other applications then packaged and resold to data servicers.” The statement continues:

Advertising data based on voice and other data is collected by these platforms and devices under the terms and conditions provided by those apps and accepted by their users, and can then be sold to third-party companies and converted into anonymized information for advertisers. This anonymized data then is resold by numerous advertising companies.

The company added that it does not “listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement” and “regret[s] any confusion.”

Big corporations doing shady shit fucking over (or buying out) small companies trying to fix the shady shit to make the lives of the customers of said big business a bit easier.

Not sure what to say. Seems like the standard nowadays.

The biggest criticism for the idea of phones always listening and sending that data somewhere ia that they would also be listening to other corporations and their meetings. Even if multi-billion corporations can just waltz over the rights of normal people, other companies would be very interested in knowing this is happening.

Also I feel like they already know this stuff so they gain very fucking little in listening on us. You saw an interesting website two days ago and spent more time in it than normal. Then you meet uo with friends whom are known to have similar likes as you, why the hell would ad companies not show ads for the same page / item / event to those people. It doesn’t matter at all if you mention it or not. Companies already know what products and brands you like, if your friends search for something, obviously they get ads of products that are interesting in their circle of friends. The items / brands / whatever are being talked about because they’re interesting to the circle of people, which companies already know.

Would you look at that, nice.

Sure, but you could have a setting which allows sexualised content to be accessed or showed. Or just a popup when entering the stream like it already does with mature streams or whatever they’re called. You can have the streams only visible to people logged in, have people put their age on the account when making it (not sure if already a thing) and not show this stuff to people under 18. Yes you can just say you’re 18 but in that case the kids do it deliberately and won’t just stumble upon it. Have the parents do an underage account for them. Lots of options, and yes, the parents do have responsibility as well.

Oh no, almost visible tits!? Nono we can’t have that, it’ll morally bankrupt our audience.

Edit: apparently they’re more lenient as long as it is properly tagged. Nice.

Very common. Advertisers already know everyone you come in contact with, or ar least those whom you spend time with. They will use that info to push ads to the group, or to the relevant people of that group.

It’s Christmas time, you browse moccasins store for 10min, obviously you’re interested in them. Why wouldn’t advertisers show that item to your gf? That’s like the perfect ad for her.

Are you suggesting a case in which it’s funded by some billionaire who does not need to charge money in order to cover the cost of hosting?

This is a fair point. I doubt anybody would do this, or the monetization would be done through ads which might fall into the commercial aspect? Don’t actually know, but this is already a thing and not something I was really thinking about. Relating to this actually, it would be interesting to know how much licencing fees are in comparison to server costs for the current streaming services.

I was thinking something more like a program that just pulls data from torrents directly, so no need for a central server. Yes, probably not feasible using the current system as everyone would just leech, but maybe one would have to also share things you watch or something. Yes, again, this would complicate things but I don’t think that is necessarily has to. I feel like there has been a service like this (popcorn time or something), I think I used something like this aaaaages ago.

Definitely there would be technical challenges for something like this but to me it does not sound impossible. I just feel like that if something like this system would exist (if piracy were legal), it would completely nuke the cash flow for tons of companies. It would not remove all of it, some people would donate just like they do for open source projects.

At least for me personally, I am willing to pay for stuff in order for it to be legal. Should the need to pay be removed, while keeping things legal, I’d have no incentive to pay. The only incentive would be convenience, but I don’t think there would be any reason for piracy to be less convenient than non-piracy; it’s already more convenient for tons of use cases I’m sure.

When iTunes came along, it instantly ate up the vast majority of Limewire/Frostwire/IRC traffic for music.

Definitely true, just as happened with movies etc when Netflix and the like popped up. However, one can also argue that this was not due to convenience, but due to now there being a legal way of doing things. In reality I’m sure that everyone weighs legality and convenience (and the cost of the service) differently and makes their own decision.

Currently the convenience factor is going down due to enshittification (among other things), while price is going up. I feel like piracy is up but it’s not like I can get a non-biased view from Lemmy (or reddit) and I have not actually looked into it.

It’ll be interesting to see the direction in a few years.

But streaming proved that people won’t do that if they have a less onerous way to do it, whether it be Spotify or Netflix.

This is true to an extent, but if you would have a legal streaming platform that is free with all the same content then everyone would use that, no? The only reason someone would want to pay for Netflix is to donate to Netflix because they like it. But we all know how small of a percentage that would be. Reason why people use streaming services is that they’re simple and legal, and they are willing to pay for it.

Most video games don’t contain DRM, and can be found as torrents online, and yet video game sales are through the roof.

True. Though literally no clue about how much DRM there is. However, if piracy is fully legal then there would be no reason to purchase the games (assuming they’re as convenient). People are prepared to pay for things that are legal.

You’re literally just rehashing all the tired MPAA/RIAA talking points claiming that piracy would kill music and movies, that never panned out despite piracy always still existing.

Not really. I am arguing against piracy being legal. I am not arguing that piracy in its current form is killing anything.

If it comes from their copy, sure.

As in this argument.

Yeah alright makes sense. Sometimes it hard to know what people are exactly arguing about.

Sure, they are procuring something worth money without paying for it. But this is a very different argument than you would not pirate something if you would not also be prepared to pay it.

and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work?

But by this definition then, it should be ok for only one person to buy the item and then just copy and give it to everyone else, and the original author receives payment from a single item?

So are you arguing that turnstile jumpers are harming the company, but they are not stealing the service / train / ride? Like the literal word “steal”.