Let me guess, they used existing footage and reports as training data, and it produced an incredibly racist ai model that routinely ignores police misconduct. They'll spend a couple years working on bandaids for the problem while police departments across the country use the original model to create reports and use the "unbiased ai reports" as an excuse to hide the raw footage.
Also: "That was just an AI hallucination, it's not admissible in court" when it was absolutely not an AI hallucination when the cop shot someone for mouthing off.
404media has done some of the best in-depth tech journalism there is lately, but I guess paying them for that is a bridge too far for most (or even making a free account...).
It's literally a worker owned cooperative and your first response is to block them at the DNS level? Great research there, boyo.
The publication covers topics such as hacking, sex work, niche online communities, and the right to repair movement. The publication is worker-owned.
404 Media was founded in 2023 by former staff of Vice Media's Motherboard after it filed for bankruptcy.
During the Taylor Swift deepfake pornography controversy, a 404 Media investigation discovered that the images originated from 4chan and were being distributed on Telegram before making it onto social media platforms.
In an article about 2024 media industry layoffs, the Financial Times highlighted 404 Media as a successful new media venture amid an "existential crisis" in the industry. The article stated that the publication has been noted for "publishing an eye-catching range of stories about the tech sector", and noted that "Not only is it producing good stories but its founders say it is breaking even".
Sorry they're trying to actually get paid for real journalism. I guess you'd prefer clickbait from corporate owned bullshit company that pays their writers squat and uses AI to write articles?
Finally, this is arguably a really important subject to be having journalists look at, but I guess clickbait is more appealing.
It is possible to respect their efforts, but refuse to sign up for things on principle.
And, if the account is "free", then why did you need to give them an email in the first place? If they aren't getting money from you, then needing a login that would require an email address is sketchy as hell on the surface, and there's no explanation given.
Yeah, blocking the site in its entirety is kinda weird, seems like extra effort for no benefit at all when you can just not use the site. But objecting to what is a pointless "account" unless they're monetizing the information makes plenty of sense. Worker owned is not a guarantee of good behavior. It certainly helps, and it's the superior business model imo, but it isn't inherently going to mean they aren't doing dumb shit.
Two to three times a month, I need to fight with Amazon over negative reviews that get spammed on multiple books because an author got upset about a story being rejected. Or I get some snark response back about how my reviewers need better training, or that I am not a "real" editor, or something outright vulgar. Or I get a prank call to my phone. These sort of people have always lurked around the industry, so I am not unaccustomed to dealing with them. But it seems like they have grown more emboldened, and there seems to be this weird social currency tied to the bad behavior now.
Dawson really nails down something that has been bothering me a long time. I think she's absolutely right that people with bad behavior are emboldened and that there is this weird social currency among the people exhibiting this behavior. It's been the downside of the internet, it seems like the biggest bullies and people with the worst behavioral problems have all found each other and decided to pump each other up about being total pieces of shit. It's maddening.
I see this in my day job, too. When I'm in a charitable mood, I chalk it up to pandemic trauma. But more realistically, I think it is a real change in our society's ability and willingness to compromise and see the world through the eyes of others. People want what they want and they don't give a fuck who they have to roll over to get what they want. They treat getting what they want as a matter of principle.
The only change I've seen in this regard is a dramatic reduction in people's willingness to tolerate these people. They've always been here and always been like this, but we as a society used to just let them have their way to make them go away.
So I see articles like this as being nothing but good news.
Even worse, negativity increases engagement on social media. So instead of shutting it down, it's more profitable for them and the algorithms encourage it.
It's this. I know I've become angrier, bitter, and even more misanthropic because of the uptick of people that have been massive pieces of shit since he took office. I think I developed a "fuck you" attitude as a self defence mechanism and I've lost all my empathy.
It didn't start with Drumpf, but his indelible slime trail certainly coated the way for them to wiggle out further than their known fetid shit puddles of yesteryear.
They completely missed the point, as if they didn't even bother reading the summary. She literally says these people have always been around, it's just that AI is making being an asshole easier.
What? This is saying that the dudes already so detached from reality that they don't find any women should even further detach from reality. If you are an open-minded cis dude who respects women and sees them as equal human beings you'll have no problem finding anyone.
It seems very annoying to me when cishet dudes whine about how hard they have it. It might be true, but the problem is usually that they've been brought up with a misogynistic worldview and hegemonic masculinity. That's what I referred to by calling them detached from reality.
It is like a narcissistic person telling you how hard their life is while abusing you. You can empathize with them because they sure have a hard life. But as long as they're not self-aware and reflect on their doings, I won't have much empathy with them. Same goes for cis men.
Nope, I disagree. I see shades of gray and have some few friends that happen to be cishet guys. But I know very few cis men that are not bigots, feel entitled, treat women like inferiors, etc.
But, do you agree with the original statement I replied to?
Narcisstic Personality Disorder is a lifelong disability with no cure. You can be a nice person with NPD. You can be a wise person with NPD. You can even be a healthy person with NPD, because disorders and illnesses are two different things. Having NPD is like having type 1 diabetes. You can live a normal life, but it's still going to take constant attention to treat, and some stuff is always going to be just a bit harder for you. The myth that people with NPD are abusers is pseudoscientific bigotry. There are plenty of self aware people with NPD and there are plenty of non-abusers with NPD. People with NPD are most likely to be the victims of abuse compared to the abuser, but the kind of people who prey on the disabled to satisfy their own desire for cruelty don't want you to believe that.
Oh hello, you again! Sorry, won't discuss with you any further about this topic. Nothing new to be said and you newer replied to all the scientific studies I gave you why a high percentage of pwNPD tend to abuse others.
If you are an open-minded cis dude who respects women and sees them as equal human beings you’ll have no problem finding anyone.
It's not always that simple. For example, I cared for my Dad 24/7 which involved a convoluted pill regime (and a series of alarms throughout the day). My social life took a real hit. There are also mental and physical health issues, as well as financial aspects.
All that said, anyone thinking this is the solution deserves to be scammed because it is hardly informed consent.
OK, let me rephrase this into "if you are ... you will be as likely as cishet women to find someone to date". My point was that cishet men may have it hard to find someone because they are not catching up with progressive and emancipatory values. There are many many heteropessimisstic or otherwise frustrated women out there searching for a guy that does not treat them like shit.
But sure, if you don't have the capacity for a social life or for dating then obviously this won't be as easy. My comment was a response to the premise that cishet guys have it harder in dating and that they should be allowed to scam people.
My point was that cishet men may have it hard to find someone because they are not catching up with progressive and emancipatory values.
It's worse than that - things seem to be regressing, with a widening political divide between men and women, especially noticeable in the younger adults.
It definitely feels like the modest progress that was made is now being eroded away
Yeah, it's pretty disheartening and even frightening. I don't know how to educate men on feminist ideas and get them on board. And being antifeminist doesn't even benefit them that much. There are so many men living their life miserable and ending up in jail because of their toxic masculinity and societal expectations of men. And I'm certainly interested in helping cis men get better, reconnect with their emotions and learn about emancipation. But at the same time I don't see how people who are not cis men can do so much to really help them. We are pretty busy surviving them and supporting each other.
And being antifeminist doesn’t even benefit them that much.
The only people benefitting are those peddling the lies to disgruntled young men, partly as a grift and partly as misdirection from the real sources of their issues.
But at the same time I don’t see how much people who are not cis men can do so much to really help them.
And it shouldn't be your job to fix young men but I am as stumped as you and I worry about people like my nephew who is early teens.
There's !mensliberation but I don't know if that's not just preaching to the converted.
Yes, it is really a frustrating situation. Since you seem to be a man, maybe you can be a good example to your nephew? But well, not so easy either unfortunately :(
On the flip side, if the genders were changed in this situation and the guy only wanted the woman because of superficial reasons like she was attractive or popular, how many people would be saying "he got what he deserves"
This is definitely one of those double standard situations. While we shouldn't be victim blaming, I think there's something to be said for calling out people who are willing to throw away an existing relationship or form a new relationship just because an "influencer" came up to them and they thought they were rich. And I think that's what the poster you are responding to was getting at.
I think it's completely fair to have an honest conversation about what could cause someone to be enticed by a large number of followers, but I don't think that OP was making space for that conversation. It came off as victim blaming because there was no attempt at nuance or unpacking the fact that these women were targeted by a conman and that we really shouldn't be blaming them at all.
Again, can we please not victim blame? Calling this a failure, saying that they must be "so shallow" to fall for a fame scam is analogous to saying "she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed" to a rape victim. Being a human is complicated and there are many reasons a victim can fall prey to a scam. It's not as one dimensional as you're painting it and regardless of how shallow a person is, no one deserves to be taken advantage of. The focus of discussion here should not be the victim, but rather the perpetrator and the fact that they are out to take advantage of others. That's abhorrent behavior and we should keep the focus squarely on them.
I don't want to blame just the victim, I want to blame everyone, society included.
Also I don't think that someone's behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice, and I see much more than a single problem in this whole situation. It also isn't any inherent weakness or any sort of coercion that are getting exploited, everyone is free to leave at any moment.
no one deserves to be taken advantage of
Agreed.
The problem is that everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone, they just differ in what they want:
one wants money
another wants sex
last one wants clout and money
We can agree that the main instigator is the seller, taking advantage of the others, but that doesn't mean the others are completely innocent; they can't be, or the whole scheme wouldn't be possible in the first place.
(in a sane world, I'd expect the only one to get scammed would be the buyer... but I know that groupies are a real thing)
I think we should ask why each one of them wants what they want, and why are they ready to jump at the opportunity of taking advantage of someone else in order to get it.
Then we could ask what could be done to prevent the whole situation from being possible, at every level.
PS: in some jurisdictions, there is a "funny" situation where lying to get sex is a felony up to certain age... but once it's between "consenting adults", lying to get sex is perfectly fine! 😒 We could also take a look at that, how is it possible to give consent while being lied to.
I don’t think that someone’s behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice
I completely agree, but victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals is part of the reason we have really shitty reporting of fraudsters. Creating an environment which discourages them from speaking up is harmful to society as a whole.
everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone
We don't know this, and we shouldn't assume this of the victim. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but focusing on talking about the victim here when there are actors which are clearly out to harm or take advantage of others is harmful framing. If this is a discussion you wish to have, I personally believe the appropriate framing is necessary - we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them before talking about potentially problematic behavior. But even then, it's kind of jumping to conclusions about the victim here and I'm not so certain it's a discussion that should even be entertained.
victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals
I don't know about the US, here in Spain the love scams, and fame scams, are a thing across all genders and orientations, with low reporting of scams in general being attributed mainly to shame of the victims for having fallen for a scam.
People like to think they're smarter than most other people, and the more sure they are of that, the easier they are to fool. I think it's no wonder they don't want to acknowledge it afterwards.
everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone
We don't know this, and we shouldn't assume this of the victim.
I don't see how else it could work... but I'm open to hearing alternatives?
we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them
Fair.
A relevant aspect I can think of, is the part about it being fine to lie to have sex between "consenting" adults. How can there be consent, when one or both parties are misleading the other? Sounds like an officially codified permission to abuse.
I don't get what people see in fame or clout, it looks like lying and argument of authority to me. The fact that anyone would pursue or get influenced by either, seems to me like ingrained predisposition to getting abused (by authority figures). Not sure how much of that is inherent, and how much social.
A clearly perverse incentive in the whole scheme, is money... but that's kind of unavoidable in any money based society.
The elephant in the room, is sex itself: how can it, on one side, make someone pay and lie for it, and on the other side be used as a bargaining chip. Is it a purely hormonal catalyst for the whole scheme, or a proxy for a power play?
The "thousands of people" watching your "stream" are bots. They can respond to what's going on in the video in real time because they're bots. Actually I technically think this would be more efficient and therefore is probably designed so that it's only one LLM pretending to be thousands of people, but I'll call it bots because that's easier to visualise. The bots know what's going on in the "stream" because they can understand what the "streamer" is saying, which means the pickup artist can put on a convincing performance to trick the mark. If it was just a recording, it wouldn't be able to respond to novel situations caused by the mark's behaviour.
I don't actually know if this technology even works, but that would be the intent used to sell it to pickup artist bros.
I'll never understand the people that fake these kinds of things. Fake watches, fake followers, fake views, fake likes, fake jobs. Why?
What's attractive about likes and views anyway? Why would I care that my date has 0 followers or a million followers? If anything it means they'll constantly be busy streaming.
I'm a very private person. I barely use any social media where I'm not anonymous, and I wouldn't want my wife to be famous either. So take this with a grain of salt, but I think it's about winning the trophy. A million people like this person well enough to watch their content all the time, but they are with you? I can imagine that would be flattering to a certain kind of personality.
Being popular sounds wretched to me, but people chase it all the time.
"Maybe if I date someone who's famous, they'll have enough money that I won't have to worry about paying for medical bills or groceries anymore. Gee, maybe we could even buy a house and raise kids."
We live in a capitalist hellscape where such things are no longer taken for granted, and are now associated with the heights of success.
They're insecure and hate the real version of themselves is my interpretation. Instead of confronting that and moving forward with work to become a better person they instead put up a facade, often justifying the harm they do to the people who believe in the facade by convincing themselves that these facades are common to all people, and everyone is fake
I remember reading a melodrama from the 1800s where the protagonist, a failed writer, makes a deal with the devil to have a bestselling book. In the second half he becomes wildly successful, but is tortured by the knowledge that he is genuinely mediocre. It always stuck with me. Reminds me of people buying Likes.
This seems to be sleazy conmen faking interactions with women to convince wannabe pick-up artists to pay for their app. It's like some new circle of Hell.
Really the only trick they missed was turning it into a pyramid scheme but that might sneak in if you use the app a lot, although imagine the "success rate" on this is abysmal and a lot of users will drop out quickly.
I'm not sure about that. The only examples given in the article of this actually "working" were from people directly advertising the product. The women in the videos are quite likely to be associates or paid actors, as is the case with most of this stuff on social media. The whole concept of the product relies on the misogynistic myth that women only care about money and/or fame, so to assume the app itself is actually working is kind of implying that you believe there is some truth to that myth.
the misogynistic myth that women only care about money and/or fame
Genuiney disheartening that this shit is re-surfacing again. I remember this sentiment going about around a decade ago, and then subsiding. Now it's resurfacing. Every generation loves to repeat the mistakes of it's past
This is why they changed their API to make bots that serve too many servers (100 maybe?) become verified and go through an application process to be able to ask for the message content intent, which was part of discord bot libraries revolting for a while. But their choice was actually a pretty good middle ground. There's very good reason to allow devs to build out and actually test the functionality on their own server or couple of servers without the giant limiting factor of getting someone from discord to evaluate every feature you might possibly add.
If they're doing this through regular user accounts instead, I don't know what you expect discord to do. Public servers aren't private. Hundreds to thousands of people can see your messages. They're not that different than posting them in any other public forum. Technical limitations only go so far.
404media.co
Hot