@futzle I’m so incensed by this I even went and checked the Privacy Act to see if I could at least complain that their stupid website didn’t have a privacy policy.

But no, it was as I had remembered: they have declared election activities exempt.

But I like the idea of returning the envelopes. Maybe I’ll add some glitter. Or some sticky rice flour.

@daedalus @KathyReid I saw a great presentation recently by Michal Chorev talking about how new ideas and human created content will end up becoming walled off, in order to keep it out of the churning guts of AI. Or perhaps to keep it only for one specific AI company who pays top dollar for exclusive access.

If you are a bot or a millionaire, you can create an account and pay us money and read our human created content.

If you are a normal human and can pass this numerous set of captchas (some of which will be designed to have you create more content for us), then you can have access for free. But with ads. The bots won’t buy stuff from ads after all.

If you are a normal human and don’t have millions and don’t want ads or the captchas are too awful, you can eat AI slop (some of which will be paid subscriber only), or hope that you can get access to your local library. Which is having to keep records on paper and airgapped to keep the bots out.

@daedalus @KathyReid I assume you mean “exemplar” as “an example of” not as in “ideal, exemplary”?! We are hoping for the latter but yes, the lack of curation means we end up with the former.

Wishing that the cream will rise to the top through repetition and regurgitation has never worked in an ecosystem that has competition drivers of profit and time. App stores are a race to the bottom. News has become a nauseating click bait frenzy. I can’t see how genAI would magically break the mould.