@masukomi@aral yes, that's a huge issue (and one that on its own should rule out having events here—conference organizers need to pay attention and not just assume that no attendee is affected)
@aral I am in the USA and I agree. I'm not inviting anyone from outside the country for the foreseeable future unfortunately.
(I have a rough idea what to do if a visitor has trouble with local law enforcement here, but you could be sent to a Federal or private location out of state where it would be hard for any host or their lawyer to communicate with you)
@aral good point. (and how much money would the USA's Big Tech companies owe in EU fines if the EU wasn't going easy on them because they rely on the USA's help for regional defense?)
@evan I figure that by blocking surveillance ads I should be spending an extra $17/mo on subscriptions to even things out https://blog.zgp.org/or-we-could-just-not/ (but that's a USA number, probably lower in countries with less total money spent on advertising)
@fabiocosta0305@glynmoody@cstross The fair use issue in the USA still isn't decided. In the EU, though, AI can be trained on copyrighted works unless the copyright holder "expressly reserves" -- which all the mainstream publishing companies, and most independent authors, have been doing
Malwarebytes has more info on fake domains showing up in search ads -- in this case it's fake ads for ads.google.com but looks like the same principle (?)
@lavaeolus@dsalo It looks like they're obfuscating their real problem, which is that most of the people who have released their works under CC licenses want an updated license that clearly disallows generative AI training, and Creative Commons management doesn't want to make one
1/2 very good point from @_elena here: "I will be thinking: what do the Big Tech billionaires and kleptocrats wish I would do? And then I will do the OPPOSITE."
The habits and settings that are revenue-positive for Big Tech are the ones that reflect more surveillance and addiction on the user's side (ever notice how Big Tech big shots tend to have strict screen time rules for their own families?)
@aral@SecurityWriter Good point. Some ad blockers are security tools, some (like ABP) offer a false sense of security with paid allow-listing, and some are adware, malware, or subscription scams.
The 2 tools I recommend are:
Privacy Badger is simpler but since it's purely focused on tracking it will let more annoyances through.
uBlock Origin does a lot more
I never recommend "an ad blocker" to users—the extensions that come up highest in Google are the ones that let the Google ads through
@tchambers@evan Personally I'm not opposed to web advertising if done right (Kurt Vonnegut was able to quit his day job as a car dealership manager because of sales to ad-supported magazines—constructive web ads could help writers) but the way that Mozilla is going about it is more like #adfraud in the browser than like the previous "ads in Firefox" projects
Making it easy for bad sites to "steal attribution" (claim credit for sales) creates surveillance risks to users
#readTheWholeThing "[W]e and our colleagues at other journalist-owned publications like Defector, Hell Gate, Racket, Remap, Aftermath, and others have shown that small businesses owned by the people doing the work can be successful not just editorially, but can also be financially sustainable."
(he/him) VP Ecosystem Innovation at Raptive (the company that used to be CafeMedia), advisor to Consumer Reports on privacy research, member of W3C privacy and advertising groups, desktop Linux user, live in California, on US-Eastern time mostly. I'm usually either the privacy person in the advertising meeting or the advertising person in the privacy meeting. All posts are personal opinions, not speaking for employer or any organization here.