???

“library card” doesn’t magically make me get all the books that I want.

I currently just follow MIT open books and DOAB for interesting books.

New creators applying for YouTube Partner Program (YPP) will need 8,000 qualified watch hours in the last 365 days, or 20 million qualified Shorts views in the last 90 days.

Old requirements for comparison:

1,000 subscribers with 4,000 watch hours in the past year or 10 million Shorts views in the past 90 days.

Sigh

If you had read the situation, you would find that the information news outlet reported this first, then the media talked about it then Meta admit this in news statements. (They didn’t even release a blog/press release).

While I don’t rule out that it’s a publicity stunt, I think it’s very unlikely. Otherwise I would call Meta terrible at marketing because they are not loud about it at all.

In my opinion, OpenAI accident has triggered a wave of scans among AI companies to discover any problems before they get hold liable for damages by the hacked company and to solve them internally.

That’s how I read the situation as of 7th of August. My opinion might change, if any new info came out that seem sus.

Why? What harms come from the AI generated stories to their readers?

Interesting.

Got any sources for this claim?

Garbage website.

Actual article.

Open in browser.

I really appreciate your efforts in developing Piefed.

I didn’t see the moderation actions you refranced, I just noticed them posting everywhere. That’s why I wrote my post.

Thank you for explaining it.

Developers don’t control content.

As I said, the developers can implement moderation software solution.

Easiest example would be if they wanted to mark sus spam accounts, they could mark accounts that posted more than 20 link posts with >40% from the same site as spam accounts, with clear mark for every user to see.

The implementation might need time and resources, but it’s possible.

But it’s actually moderated by admins, mods and to some extent the software developers of the Fediverse, if they wanted to.

1. They don’t disclose it clearly;
2. We are way past old web;
3. The websites content in a lot of cases is sloppy, written specifically to get viral on social media, with no journalistic value.

Actual article.

Will that change the news? The title would still be the same and the original source would still be the same.

Filtered or unfiltered. It’s still news.

Take some responsibility for what exactly?

Your disagreement with him is not going to change the event.

The title would be the same even if from other source. “US senator” is not an honorary title, it’s a job.

Thank you a lot for your deep dive here, bro.

Just a feeling.

The actual article.