Please tell your friends about federated social media site that speaks several fediverse protocols thus serving as a hub uniting them, hubzilla.eskimo.com, also check out friendica.eskimo.com, federated
macroblogging social media site, mastodon.eskimo.com a federated microblogging site, and yacy.eskimo.com an uncensored federated search engine. All Free!
Par Juliette Touma, le 15 Juillet 2025 Israël bloque 6 000 camions de l’UNRWA à l’entrée de Gaza, tandis que des enfants meurent de faim. Le monde peut encore empêcher une catastrophe plus grande s’il choisit d’agir.
10 hours of thunderstorm sounds came on the playlist, so i didn't realize it was also raining outside and left my car windows cracked (again). fortunately the rain sounds reminded me to look outside
Here's notes on why, and how to manage them, and how to get my work elsewhere if you don't want to follow me here (in open licensed formats that you can republish in still more ways if that pleases you better):
Yes, my apologies if this came across as a jab at you. That wasn't my intent at all.
I just thought it was funny because I'm absolutely positive I've done this cycle at least once in my life... if not many more. I read all of your long threads every time I see them (inevitably when someone RTs the first post), and I love them. Then I realize I'm not following you directly, and that seems silly because I love your content. Then I get blasted, remember why I didn't follow directly, and unfollow.
Some time later, the cycle inevitably repeats... and I feel obligated to make fun of myself for repeating it.
"Google needs to keep up the story that it is growing. Once Google stops growing, it becames a "mature" company and its PE ratio will fall from 20:1 to something more like 4:1, meaning an 80% collapse in the company's share price..." - @pluralistic
Not to be the I said so guy, but it's near a decade ago that I first started muttering about maybe not calling Google a startup anymore - which is essentially & rather insanely what they're still doing.
How do you continue growing when the majority of the world's population already uses your products? Magically inventing more customers (at least, faster than the birth date) is not going to happen.
@Murray_N You know what's worse than hearing someone lock their brakes up behind you? Being on your phone with your hands off the controls while someone locks their brakes up behind you.
I've just finished reading _Technofeudalism_ by Yanis Varoufakis. If he's right, then it's politically urgent to escape from the clutches of Meta, Google, Amazon and the like as soon as possible.
Varoufakis' arguments reminded me of _Chokepoint Capitalism_ by Rebecca Giblin and @pluralistic, though according to Varoufakis the dominance of Amazon and the like has killed off capitalism and is a form of feudalism. I still want to compare these two analyses more carefully.
But Varoufakis' argument is: these platforms have managed to lure people in to work for them for free, and with every post and update on their platforms, these exploitative and massively dangerous companies grow stronger and harder to defeat. On the other hand, if the people take back social media and the internet more generally, there's a real opportunity for building a counter-movement with these technologies.
The lesson I take from this: getting people to quit the capitalist platforms and join the #Fediverse is part of political organisation, and possibly an important part if you consider the way people are tethered to their Instagram and Tiktok.
Let me repeat this: Convincing and helping comrades to quit the capitalist platforms and join the Fediverse is an important form of revolutionary political organisation. ✊
@pre @ajn142 Yep. And valid perhaps eight years ago when I was still also posting on Twitter (mostly to raise awareness of Mastodon and help move people over). Not so much once the place becomes an actual Nazi bar. Also, if you haven’t, read my post. This goes deeper than that.
Oh wow, that's awful. Being called uncomradly by the people you care for. Sorry you saw yourself forced to leave. 😔
In 2017, I hadn't even heard of Mastodon yet. But in 2025 not being in the Fediverse? Heck, in 2023 not being in the Fediverse (and that's still generous)?
@foufoutos @antones & γώ θα τον σκεφτόμουν χωρίς να τον δω, βλαμμένος όπως πάντα αφού ο τύπος Είμαι καλή γιατί είχε φωτό του & δεν έβαλα γιατί σας σκέφτηκα, την επόμενη φορά θα βάλω όμως
Exactly. Men in women's sports is a total circus, but Thomas is a straight up cheater.
The fraud is so obvious. He's a straight male who is taking hormones to lower his testosterone, so he can compete with women. There is no ambiguity there.
Καραπατάκ Νεβάτ Μανές (Γιατί να μη χαρώ κι εγώ). Φωνογραφήθηκε το 1928. Ερμηνεύει ο Αντώνης Νταλγκάς. Δίσκος Pathe Γαλλίας Χ-80061/70038. Πληροφορίες για την...
Ο κορυφαιος των κορυφαιων. Ο Στρατος ο τεμπελης.Ο ανθρωπος που ειχε αηδόνια στο λαρύγγι. Ο δεύτερος ειναι πολυ μακρια πισω. Μπουζούκι παίζει ο Γιώργος Ζαμπέτας. Νιγκριζ μανές απο τον Στρατο.
Φωτια θα βαλω μονος μου να καψω το κορμι μου να ψαχνει ο Χάρος για να βρει στις σταχτες την ψυχή μου
Νιγκρίζ Μανές: “Φωτιά θα βάλω μόνος μου”. Ηχογραφήθηκε το 1965. Ερμηνεύει ο Στράτος Παγιουμτζής σε ηλίκα 61 ετών (γεννηθείς 1904). Μπουζούκι παίζει ο Γιώργος...
Σύνθεση κι ερνηνεία του Σωτήρη Γαβαλά ή Μεμέτη. Ηχογραφήθηκε στις 9/5/1932. Ακορντεόν παίζει ο Αντώνης Αμιραλής ή Παπατζής. Κιθάρα ο Κώστας Καρίπης και άγνωσ...
Και πίνω ακόμα. Δυο φωνες που ταιριαξαν οσο ποτε ξανα αλλες. Το Αρτεμακι (Ανεστος Δελλιας) και ο Στρατος ο Τεμπελης (Παγιουμτζης). Μελη της τετραδας της θρυλικης του Πειραια ερμηνεύουν την Αθηναίισσα το 1937. Βρισκόμαστε στο 1937 έτος που ο Μεταξάς είχε κάνει λογοκρισία στα ρεμπετικα τραγουδια και πανω σε αυτο το μοτίβο είναι αυτό το τραγούδι Το χασισι το αντικατέστησε το κρασί και την μαστούρα του δερβιση ο ευγενής έρωτας μιας αθηναισσας youtube.com/watch?v=Tlvhqy7zgq…
ΑΡΙΣΤΟΥΡΓΗΜΑ. Σύνθεση του Ανέστη Δελιά. Το τραγουδάει ο ίδιος με τον Στράτο Παγιουμτζή σε μία εκπληκτική διφωνία. Ηχογραφήθηκε το 1937. ΑΡΙΣΤΟΥΡΓΗΜΑANESTIS D...
Κι αφου αρχισα τον Στρατο εκει θα μεινω. Το τραγουδι ειναι του βλαχου που δεν τον παω καθολου (και ο βλαχος ειναι και δευτερη φωνη) αλλα αφου το τραγουδαει ο Στρατος το απογειωνει.
Ζεϊμπέκικο του Βασίλης Τσιτσάνη. Ερμηνεύει ο Στράτος Παγιουμτζής με δεύτερη φωνή τον Τσιτσάνη. Ηχογραφήθηκε το 1940. Δίσκος Columbia DG 6546. STRATOS PAGIOUM...
Το κρασί δεν με μεθάει όσο και να πιω...!!!:-)))!!!Ενα πολυ ομορφο ρεμπετικο τραγουδι ντυμενο με τη γλυκεια ερμηνεια κατα τη γνωμη μου ενος απο τους πιο αγαπ...
Provided to YouTube by The Orchard EnterprisesPente Ellines Ston Adi · Giannis PapaioannouPekse Gianni℗ 2004 Alpha RecordsReleased on: 2004-04-02Auto-generat...
Τραγουδι για γκωμμουνηα απο μια γκωμμουνα του κερατα. Σωτηρια δεν σε εφτασε και δε θα σε φτασει ποτέ καμία.
Το βαζω επιτηδες σε εκτελεση σε μεγαλη ηλικια (και ήδη αρρωστη) για να καταλαβουν καποιοι τι σημαίνει φωνάρα. Θελω να προσεξετε πως δεν υπαρχει μικροφωνο. Το εχω ζησει ζωντανά αυτο καποτε παλια, με τη σωτηρια να τραγουδαει χωρις μικροφωνο σε μαγαζι και να μας στελνει με κλαματα σπιτι.
"..Ένα βράδυ, ήταν η εποχή του εμφυλίου πολέμου, μέσα στην ησυχία της νύχτας, άκουσα ένα τραγούδι που με συγκλόνισε. Ερχόταν από κάποιο κελί των φυλακών. «Νύ...
Στίχοι: Κ.Χ ΜύρηςΜουσική: Γιάννης ΜαρκόπουλοςΕκτέλεση: Νίκος Ξυλούρης, Μέμη ΣπυράτουΕίδα τον παππούλη μου, το Μικρασιάτημε γυμνή πατούσα να μετράει τον ήλιο...
if you read between the lines, elon stated the intended goal of his party. he said he will target "10 house seats, and 5 senate seats". is that enough to lower federal deficits? of course not. is that enough to screw our razor thin margins in the house and senate and hand the dems congress? yep. That is his intended goal and we need to plan accordingly.
imo, he cozied up to trump because anybody with an IQ above 12 can see that he was gonna beat biden/cumala. he hoped he can get a exemption for his companies when it came to the EV mandates for his support. now that the plan backfired, he's trying to slither back in to the dimms good graces.
Finally finished Careless People, and first of all: definitely recommend if you want a better idea of how the insides of some of these tech companies function in practice. Also good if you want to get very upset.
There's a lot to unpack from the book, but what's really sitting with me right now is Wynn-Williams' insider perspective on what happened with Facebook in Myanmar. 🧵
It was both unsurprising and utterly gutting, as somebody who has been working on social media misinformation research in under-resourced languages for a few years now. (Note that "under-resourced languages", in the context of social media content moderation, refers to all but a small handful of languages)
It was unsurprising because we have seen this play out again and again: horrifying atrocities happening that can be traced directly back to the unchecked spread of misinformation and hate speech.
& this isn't just letting the stray oblique racist comment slide, either— this is stuff like major influential figures calling for violence, it's massive troll farms laying the groundwork for ethnic cleansing and operating with impunity. As one colleague of mine puts it, "Facebook is just like 4chan".
Well, I went a purchased the $229 bluetoth cooking probes. Before you all jump on me for this, during Prime Days it was reduced to $169, and I had $200 in Amazon gift cards from a credit card I was about to cancel. Might as well spend those rewards on something you normally wouldn't buy.
🎢Gelmerbahn, the steepest open funicular in Europe with a 106% gradient, will take you to Lake Gelmer (1850 m above sea level). Helmersee is the starting po...
Support me this summer in the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop! This summer, I'm writing "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux that explains how to be an effective AI critic:
Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. He is the author of many books, most recently RADICALIZED and WALKAWAY, science fiction for adults; HOW TO DESTROY SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM, nonfiction about monopoly …
It's been more than a year since I gave up on Google Search (I switched to Kagi.com and never looked back). I don't miss it. It had gotten terrible. It's gotten worse since, thanks to AI (of course):
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
The Media's Pivot to AI Is Not Real and Not Going to Work
On May 23, we got a very interesting email from Ghost, the service we use to make 404 Media. “Paid subscription started,” the email said, which is the subject line of all of the automated emails we get when someone subscribes to 404 Media. The interesting thing about this email was that the new subscriber had been referred to 404 Media directly from chatgpt.com, meaning the person clicked a link to 404 Media from within a ChatGPT window. It is the first and only time that ChatGPT has ever sent us a paid subscriber.
From what I can tell, ChatGPT.com has sent us 1,600 pageviews since we founded 404 Media nearly two years ago. To give you a sense of where this slots in, this is slightly fewer than the Czech news aggregator novinky.cz, the Hungarian news portal Telex.hu, the Polish news aggregator Wykop.pl, and barely more than the Russian news aggregator Dzen.ru, the paywall jumping website removepaywall.com, and a computer graphics job board called 80.lv. In that same time, Google has sent roughly 3 million visitors, or 187,400 percent more than ChatGPT.
This is really neither here nor there because we have tried to set our website up to block ChatGPT from scraping us, though it is clear this is not always working. But even for sites that don’t block ChatGPT, new research from the internet infrastructure company CloudFlare suggests that OpenAI is crawling 1,500 individual webpages for every one visitor that it is sending to a website. Google traffic has begun to dry up as both Google’s own AI snippets and AI-powered SEO spam have obliterated the business models of many media websites. This general dynamic—plummeting traffic because of AI snippets, ChatGPT, AI slop, Twitter no workie so good no more—has been called the “traffic apocalypse” and has all but killed some smaller websites and has been blamed by executives for hundreds of layoffs at larger ones.
Despite the fact that generative AI has been a destructive force against their businesses, their industry, and the truth more broadly, media executives still see AI as a business opportunity and a shiny object that they can tell investors and their staffs that they are very bullish on. They have to say this, I guess, because everything else they have tried hasn’t worked, and pretending that they are forward thinking or have any clue what they are doing will perhaps allow a specific type of media executive to squeeze out a few more months of salary.
But pivoting to AI is not a business strategy. Telling journalists they must use AI is not a business strategy. Partnering with AI companies is a business move, but becoming reliant on revenue from tech giants who are creating a machine that duplicates the work you’ve already created is not a smart or sustainable business move, and therefore it is not a smart business strategy. It is true that AI is changing the internet and is threatening journalists and media outlets. But the only AI-related business strategy that makes any sense whatsoever is one where media companies and journalists go to great pains to show their audiences that they are human beings, and that the work they are doing is worth supporting because it is human work that is vital to their audiences. This is something GQ’s editorial director Will Welch recently told New York magazine: “The good news for any digital publisher is that the new game we all have to play is also a sustainable one: You have to build a direct relationship with your core readers,” he said.
Becoming an “AI-first” media company has become a buzzword that execs can point at to explain that their businesses can use AI to become more ‘efficient’ and thus have a chance to become more profitable. Often, but not always, this message comes from executives who are laying off large swaths of their human staff.
In May, Business Insider laid off 21 percent of its workforce. In her layoff letter, Business Insider’s CEO Barbara Peng said “there’s a huge opportunity for companies who harness AI first.” She told the remaining employees there that they are “fully embracing AI,” “we are going all-in on AI,” and said “over 70 percent of Business Insider employees are already using Enterprise ChatGPT regularly (our goal is 100%), and we’re building prompt libraries and sharing everyday use cases that help us work faster, smarter, and better.” She added they are “exploring how AI can boost operations across shared services, helping us scale and operate more efficiently.”
Last year, Hearst Newspapers executives, who operate 78 newspapers nationwide, told the company in an all-hands meeting audio obtained by 404 Media that they are “leaning into [AI] as Hearst overall, the entire corporation.” Examples given in the meeting included using AI for slide decks, a “quiz generation tool” for readers, translations, a tool called Dispatch, which is an email summarization tool, and a tool called “Assembly,” which is “basically a public meeting monitor, transcriber, summarizer, all in one. What it does is it goes into publicly posted meeting videos online, transcribes them automatically, [and] automatically alerts journalists through Slack about what’s going on and links to the transcript.”
The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are doing all sorts of fucked up shit that definitely no one wants but are being imposed upon their newsrooms because they are owned by tech billionaires who are tired of losing money. The Washington Posthas an AI chatbot and plans to create a Forbes contributor-esque opinion section with an AI writing tool that will assist outside writers. The Los Angeles Timesintroduced an AI bot that argues with its own writers and has written that the KKK was not so bad, actually. Both outlets have had massive layoffs in recent months.
The New York Times, which is actually doing well, says it is using AI to “create initial drafts of headlines, summaries of Times articles and other text that helps us produce and distribute the news.” Wirecutter is hiring a product director for AI and recently instructed its employees to consider how they can use AI to make their journalism better, New York magazine reported. Kevin Roose, an, uhh, complicated figure in the AI space, said “AI has essentially replaced Google for me for basic questions,” and said that he uses it for “brainstorming.” His Hard Fork colleague Casey Newton said he uses it for “research” and “fact-checking.”
Over at Columbia Journalism Review, a host of journalists and news execs, myself included, wrote about how AI is used in their newsrooms. The responses were all over the place and were occasionally horrifying, and ranged from people saying they were using AI as personal assistants to brainstorming partners to article drafters.
In his largely incoherent screed that shows how terrible he was at managing G/O Media, which took over Deadspin, Kotaku, Jezebel, Gizmodo, and other beloved websites and ran them into the ground at varying speeds, Jim Spanfeller nods at the “both good and perhaps bad” impacts of AI on news. In a truly astounding passage of a notably poorly written letter that manages to say less than nothing, he wrote: “AI is a prime example. It is here to a degree but there are so many more shoes to drop [...] Clearly this technology is already having a profound impact. But so much more is yet to come, both good and perhaps bad depending on where you sit and how well monitored and controlled it is. But one thing to keep in mind, consumers seek out content for many reasons. Certainly, for specific knowledge, which search and search like models satisfy in very effective ways. But also, for insights, enjoyment, entertainment and inspiration.”
At the MediaPost Publishing Insider Conference, a media industry business conference I just went to in New Orleans, there was much chatter about AI. Alice Ting, an executive for the Daily Mail gave a pretty interesting talk about how the Daily Mail is protecting its journalism from AI scrapers in order to eventually strike deals with AI companies to license their content.
“What many of you have seen is a surge in scraping of our content, a decline in traffic referrals, and an increase in hallucinated outputs that often misrepresent our brands,” Ting said. “Publishers can provide decades of vetted and timestamped content, verified, fact checked, semantically organized, editorially curated. And in addition offer fresh content on an almost daily basis.”
Ting is correct in that several publishers have struck lucrative deals with AI companies, but she also suggested that AI licensing would be a recurring revenue stream for publishers, which would require a series of competing LLMs to want to come in and license the same content over and over again. Many LLMs have already scraped almost everything there is to scrape, it’s not clear that there are going to consistently be new LLMs from companies wanting to pay to train on data that other LLMs have already trained on, and it’s not clear how much money the Daily Mail’s blogs of the day are going to be worth to an AI company on an ongoing basis. Betting that this time, hinging the future of our industry on massive, monopolistic tech giants will work out is the most Lucy with the football thing I can imagine.
There is not much evidence that selling access to LLMs will work out in a recurring way for any publisher, outside of the very largest publishers like, perhaps, the New York Times. Even at the conference, panel moderator Upneet Grover, founder of LH2 Holdings, which owns several smaller blogs, suggested that “a lot of these licensing revenues are not moving the needle, at least from the deals we’ve seen, but there’s this larger threat of more referral traffic being taken away from news publishers [by AI].” youtube.com/embed/La2R3iIL9BE?… In my own panel at the conference I made the general argument that I am making in this article, which is that none of this is going to work.
“We’re not just competing against large-scale publications and AI slop, we are competing against the entire rest of the internet. We were publishing articles and AI was scraping and republishing them within five minutes of us publishing them,” I said. “So many publications are leaning into ‘how can we use AI to be more efficient to publish more,’ and it’s not going to work. It’s not going to work because you’re competing against a child in Romania, a child in Bangladesh who is publishing 9,000 articles a day and they don’t care about facts, they don’t care about accuracy, but in an SEO algorithm it’s going to perform and that’s what you’re competing against. You have to compete on quality at this point and you have to find a real human being audience and you need to speak to them directly and treat them as though they are intelligent and not as though you are trying to feed them as much slop as possible.”
It makes sense that journalists and media execs are talking about AI because everyone is talking about AI, and because AI presents a particularly grave threat to the business models of so many media companies. It’s fine to continue to talk about AI. But the point of this article is that “we’re going to lean into AI” is not a business model, and it’s not even a business strategy, any more than pivoting to “video” was a strategy or chasing Facebook Live views was a strategy.
In a harrowing discussion with Axios, in which he excoriates many of the deals publishers have signed with OpenAI and other AI companies, Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare, said that the AI-driven traffic apocalypse is a nightmare for people who make content online: “If we don’t figure out how to fix this, the internet is going to die,” he said. youtube.com/embed/H5C9EL3C82Y?… So AI is destroying traffic, ripping off our work, creating slop that destroys discoverability and further undermines trust, and allowing random people to create news-shaped objects that social media and search algorithms either can’t or don’t care to distinguish from real news. And yet media executives have decided that the only way to compete with this is to make their workers use AI to make content in a slightly more efficient way than they were already doing journalism.
This is not going to work, because “using AI” is not a reporting strategy or a writing strategy, and it’s definitely not a business strategy.
AI is a tool (sorry!) that people who are bad at their jobs will use badly and that people who are good at their jobs will maybe, possibly find some uses for. People who are terrible at their jobs (many executives), will tell their employees that they “need” to use AI, that their jobs depend on it, that they must become more productive, and that becoming an AI-first company is the strategy that will save them from the old failed strategy, which itself was the new strategy after other failed business models.
The only journalism business strategy that works, and that will ever work in a sustainable way, is if you create something of value that people (human beings, not bots) want to read or watch or listen to, and that they cannot find anywhere else. This can mean you’re breaking news, or it can mean that you have a particularly notable voice or personality. It can mean that you’re funny or irreverent or deeply serious or useful. It can mean that you confirm people’s priors in a way that makes them feel good. And you have to be trustworthy, to your audience at least. But basically, to make money doing journalism, you have to publish “content,” relatively often, that people want to consume.
This is not rocket science, and I am of course not the only person to point this out. There have been many, many features about the success of Feed Me, Emily Sundberg’s newsletter about New York, culture, and a bunch of other stuff. As she has pointed out in many interviews, she has been successful because she writes about interesting things and treats her audience like human beings. The places that are succeeding right now are individual writers who have a perspective, news outlets like WIRED that are fearless, publications that have invested in good reporters like The Atlantic, publications that tell you something that AI can’t, and worker owned, journalist-run outlets like us, Defector, Aftermath, Hellgate, Remap, Hearing Things, etc. There are also a host of personality-forward, journalism-adjacent YouTubers, TikTok influencers, and podcasters who have massive, loyal audiences, yet most of the traditional media is utterly allergic to learning anything from them.
There was a short period of time where it was possible to make money by paying human writers—some of them journalists, perhaps—to spam blog posts onto the internet that hit specific keywords, trending topics, or things that would perform well on social media. These were the early days of Gawker, Buzzfeed, VICE, and Vox. But the days of media companies tricking people into reading their articles using SEO or hitting a trending algorithm are over.
They are over because other people are doing it better than them now, and by “better,” I mean, more shamelessly and with reckless abandon. As we have written many times, news outlets are no longer just competing with each other, but with everyone on social media, and Netflix, and YouTube, and TikTok, and all the other people who post things on the internet. They are not just up against the total fracturing of social media, the degrading and enshittification of the discovery mechanisms on the internet, algorithms that artificially ding links to articles, AI snippets and summaries, etc. They are also competing with sophisticated AI slop and spam factories often being run by people on the other side of the world publishing things that look like “news” that is being created on a scale that even the most “efficient” journalist leveraging AI to save some perhaps negligible amount of time cannot ever hope to measure up to.
Every day, I get emails from AI spam influencers who are selling tools that allow slop peddlers to clone any website with one click, automatically generate newsletters about any topic, or generate plausible-seeming articles that are engineered to perform well in a search algorithm. Examples: “Clone any website in 9 seconds with Clonely AI,” “The future of video creation is here—and it’s faceless, seamless & limitless,” “just a straightforward path to earning 6-figures with an AI-powered newsletter that’s working right now.” These people do not care at all about truth or accuracy or our information ecosystem or anything else that a media company or a journalist would theoretically care about. If you want an example of what this looks like, consider the series of “Good Day” newsletters, which are AI generated and are in 355 small towns across America, many of which no longer have newspapers. These businesses are economically viable because they are being run by one person (or a very small team of people) who disproportionately live in low cost of living areas and who have essentially zero overhead.
And so becoming more “efficient” with AI is the wrong thing to do, and it’s the wrong thing to ask any journalist to do. The only thing that media companies can do in order to survive is to lean into their humanity, to teach their journalists how to do stories that cannot be done by AI, and to help young journalists learn the skills needed to do articles that weave together complicated concepts and, again, that focus on our shared human experience, in a way that AI cannot and will never be able to.
AI as buzzword and shiny object has been here for a long time. And I actually do not think AI is fake and sucks (I also don’t really believe that anyone thinks AI is “fake,” because we can see the internet collapsing around us). We report every day on the ways that AI is changing the web, in part because it is being shoved down our throats by big tech companies, spammers, etc. But I think that Princeton’s Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor are basically correct when they say that AI is “normal technology” that will not change everything but that over time will lead to modest improvements in people’s workflows as they get integrated into existing products or as they help around the edges. We—yes, even you—are using some version of AI, or some tools that have LLMs or machine learning in them in some way shape or form already, even if you hate such tools.
In early 2023, when I was the editor-in-chief of Motherboard, I was asked to put together a presentation for VICE executives about AI, and how I thought it would change both our journalism and the business of journalism. The reason I was asked to do this was because our team was writing a lot about AI, and there was a sense that the company could do something with AI to make money, or do better journalism, or some combination of those things. There was no sense or thought at the time, at least from what I was told, that VICE was planning to use AI as a pretext for replacing human journalists or cutting costs—it had already entered a cycle where it was constantly laying off journalists—but there was a sense that this was going to be the big new opportunity/threat, a new potential savior for a company that had already created a “virtual office” in Decentraland, a crypto-powered metaverse that last year had 42 daily active users.
I never got to give the presentation, because the executive who asked me to put it together left the company, and the new people either didn’t care or didn’t have time for me to give it. The company went bankrupt almost immediately after this change, and I left VICE soon after to make 404 Media with my co-founders, who also left VICE.
But my message at the time, and my message now two years later, is that AI has already changed our world, and that we have the opportunity to report on the technology as it already exists and is already being used—to justify layoffs, to dehumanize people, to spam the internet, etc. At the time, we had already written 840 articles that were tagged “AI,” which included articles about biased sentencing algorithms, predictive policing, facial recognition, deepfakes, AI romantic relationships, AI-powered spam and scams, etc.
The business opportunity then, as now, was to be an indispensable, very human guide to a technology that people—human beings—are making tons of money off of, using as an excuse to lay off workers, and are doing wild shit with. There was no magic strategy in which we could use AI to quadruple our output, replace workers, rise to the top of Google rankings, etc. There was, however, great risk in attempting to do this: “PR NIGHTMARE,” one of my slides about the risks of using AI I wrote said: “CNET plagiarism scandal. Big backlash from artists and writers to generative AI. Copyright issues. Race to the bottom.”
My other thought was that any efficiencies that could be squeezed out of AI, in our day-to-day jobs, were already being done so by good reporters and video producers at the company. There could be no top-down forced pivot to AI, because research and time-saving uses of AI were already being naturally integrated into our work by people who were smart in ways that were totally reasonable and mostly helpful, if not groundbreaking. The AI-as-force-multiplier was already happening, and while, yes, this probably helped the business in some way, it helped in ways that were not then and were never going to be actually perceptible to a company’s bottom line. AI was not a savior then, and it is not a savior now. For journalists and for media companies, there is no real “pivot to AI” that is possible unless that pivot means firing all of the employees and putting out a shittier product (which some companies have called a strategy). This is because the pivot has already occurred and the business prospects for media companies have gotten worse, not better. If Kevin Roose is using AI so much, in such a new and groundbreaking way, why aren’t his articles noticeably different than they ever were before, or why aren’t there way more of them than there were before? Where are the journalists who were formerly middling who are now pumping out incredible articles thanks to efficiencies granted by AI?
To be concrete: Many journalists, including me, at least sometimes use some sort of AI transcription tool for some of their less sensitive interviews. This saves me many hours, the tools have gotten better (but are still not perfect, and absolutely require double checking and should not be used for sensitive sources or sensitive stories). YouTube’s transcript feature is an incredible reporting tool that has allowed me to do stories that would have never been possible even a few years ago. YouTube’s built-in translations and subtitles, and its transcript tool are some of the only reasons that I was able to do this investigation into Indian AI slop creators, which allowed me to get the gist of what was happening in a given video before we handed them to human translators to get exact translations. Most podcasts I know of now use Descript, Riverside, or a similar tool to record and edit their podcasts; these have built-in AI transcription tools, built-in AI camera switching, and built-in text-to-video editing tools. Most media outlets use captioning that is built into Adobe Premiere or CapCut for their vertical videos and their YouTube videos (and then double check them). If you want to get extremely annoying about it, various machine learning algorithms are in ProTools, Audition, CapCut, Premiere, Canva, etc for things like photo editing, sound leveling, noise reduction, etc.
There are other journalists who feel very comfortable coding and doing data analysis and analyzing huge sets of documents. There are journalists out there who are already using AI to do some of these tasks and some of the resulting articles are surely good and could not have been done without AI.
But the people doing this well are doing so in a way where they are catching and fixing AI hallucinations, because the stakes for fucking up are so incredibly high. If you are one of the people who is doing this, then, great. I have little interest in policing other people’s writing processes so long as they are not publishing AI fever dreams or plagiarizing, and there are writers I respect who say they have their little chats with ChatGPT to help them organize their thoughts before they do a draft or who have vibecoded their own productivity tools or data analysis tools. But again, that’s not a business model. It’s a tool that has enabled some reporters to do their jobs, and, using their expertise, they have produced good and valuable work. This does not mean that every news outlet or every reporter needs to learn to shove the JFK documents into ChatGPT and have it shit out an investigation.
I also know that our credibility and the trust of our audience is the only thing that separates us from anyone else. It is the only “business model” that we have and that I am certain works: We trade good, accurate, interesting, human articles for money and attention. The risks of offloading that trust to an AI in a careless way is the biggest possible risk factor that we could have as a business. Having an article go out where someone goes “Actually, a robot wrote this,” is one of the worst possible things that could ever happen to us, and so we have made the brave decision to not do that.
This is part of what is so baffling about the Chicago Sun Times’ response to its somewhat complicated summer guide AI-generated reading list fiasco. Under its new owners, Chicago Public Media, The Sun Times has in recent years spent an incredible amount of time and effort rebuilding the image and good will that its previous private equity owners destroyed. And yet in its apology note, Melissa Bell, the CEO of Chicago Public Media, said that more AI is coming: “Chicago Public Media will not back away from experimenting and learning how to properly use AI,” she wrote, adding that the team was working with a fellow paid for by the Lenfest Institute, a nonprofit funded by OpenAI and Microsoft.
Bell does realize what makes the paper stand apart, though: “We must own our humanity,” Bell wrote. “Our humanity makes our work valuable.”
This is something that the New York Times’s Roose recently brought up that I thought was quite smart and yet is not something that he seems to have internalized when talking about how AI is going to change everything and that its widespread adoption is inevitable and the only path forward: “I wonder if [AI is] going to catalyze some counterreaction,” he said. “I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the slow-food movement and the farm-to-table movement, both of which came up in reaction to fast food. Fast food had a lot going for it—it was cheap, it was plentiful, you could get it in a hurry. But it also opened up a market for a healthier, more artisanal way of doing things. And I wonder if something similar will happen in creative industries—a kind of creative renaissance for things that feel real and human and aren’t just outputs from some A.I. company’s slop machine.”
This has ALREAAAAADDDDYYYYYY HAPPPENEEEEEDDDDDD, and it is quite literally the only path forward for all but perhaps the most gigantic of media companies. There is no reason for an individual journalist or an individual media company to make the fast food of the internet. It’s already being made, by spammers and the AI companies themselves. It is impossible to make it cheaper or better than them, because it is what they exist to do. The actual pivot that is needed is one to humanity. Media companies need to let their journalists be human. And they need to prove why they’re worth reading with every article they do.
My latest novel is "Picks and Shovels," a historical technothriller set in the Weird Era of the PC, about Ponzi schemes, techbros, and the dawn of enshittification:
My next nonfiction book is "Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It," out from MCD/Farrar, Straus and Giroux on October 7:
My ebooks and audiobooks (from Tor Books, Head of Zeus, McSweeneys, Beacon, Verso and others) are for sale all over the net, but I sell 'em too, and when you buy 'em from me, I earn twice as much and you get books with no DRM and no license "agreements."
The Booksmith is so excited to be welcoming Cory Doctorow back to San Francisco for the release of Enshittification at Public Works. More to come, but grab a ticket and join us!About the bookEnshittification: its not just youthe internet sucks now.
Co-op Congress brings together those working to build a fairer economy to share ideas, get inspiration and take action. See the full programme of Day One at ...
If you prefer a newsletter, subscribe to the plura-list, which is ad-/tracker-free, and is utterly unadorned save a single daily emoji. Today's is "🛕". Suggestions solicited for future emojis!
--
You can also get a fulltext RSS feed, licensed CC BY 4.0:
Support me this summer in the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop! This summer, I'm writing "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux that explains how to be an effective AI critic:
Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. He is the author of many books, most recently RADICALIZED and WALKAWAY, science fiction for adults; HOW TO DESTROY SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM, nonfiction about monopoly …
JOIN The Benny Brigade: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/brigade Check Out Our Partners:BUNKR: Go to https://bunkr.life/BENNY and use code “BENNY” to get your ...
54K likes, 968 comments - theslowfactory - August 8, 2024: "It’s not complicated, it’s colonialism. 📌 We won’t decolonize the biggest war machine in the world by voting, but we can mobilize to pressure an administration on the brink of losing the nex…
@Otto Pureblood I get that a lot from the buzzards down here. Whenever I'm sunbathing in the tripple digit, Fahrenheit heat, I sometimes see two or three of them above me, circling.
Coriander has such beautiful delicate flowers. Small insects are attracted to them. I abhor the taste of the leaves, but the seeds are my favourite spice for sourdough rye bread.
What President Donald Trump has achieved over the past three weeks, most presidents could only dream of for an entire term.Trump has revitalized military rec...
A renowned professor of Holocaust and genocide studies has called Israel's war on Gaza an "inescapable" case of genocide, joining a chorus of prominent Israeli and Jewish scholars coming to the same conclusion about Israel's 21-month war on the besie…
My niece had a beta fish and named it "Max" and there was absolutely no way to explain to her why that was funny without immediately turning into a desiccated corpse
On Sunday, Israel bombed a water distribution point in the central Gaza Strip, as dozens of civilians, mostly women and children, waited in line for water. Twelve people were killed, eight of them children. It was not the first time.
Heroku was peak devops. It's been downhill since then.
As a developer I didn't need to talk to another human to deploy a service I wrote.
If you're internal infra requires your programmer talking to another human or spending more time writing YAML then you fucked up your deployments. Period.
My dentist had 2 liberals in separate rooms talking about how awful Trump is. She pulled them both aside separately and said she won't tolerate it in public. There's another patient who telling her all about it, lol. She had to sit in her chair while the dr. explained some truths. I told her don't ever give me an appt when they're in the office. I won't be silent. 😎
Anyway, she's back to taking NAD. She gets energy & feels great.
Every for-profit corporation is like that Daria episode where her high school gets the soda vending machine, and the principal says it'll be a money-making path for the school, and starts everyone to start drinking it, and starts binging soda herself, and getting irritable with everyone and harassing the teachers and students for not drinking enough soda because now they're losing money on the soda machines they need a return on investment
In May 1861, 9-year-old Johnny Clem ran away from home to join the Union Army. Too young to enlist, he followed the 22nd Michigan as an unofficial drummer bo...
I visit the best and worst gym in my city followed by the best vs worst restaurants for the ultimate 5 and 1 star experience! Hope you all enjoy the video! I...
This soldier couldn’t hold back his tears when THIS person tapped him out! #militarykindAfter months away from his family, Cannon LaBrier broke down in tears...
SZCZECIN — A Europe that was already on the brink of war seemed poised to boil over into chaos on Monday, as news broke that Elmo had led a division of Panzer tanks across the Polish border.
You need to get the ratio of cheese-to-cracker just right. Too much cheese and you won't enjoy the hand crafted* cracker stacks you bought. Not enough cheese and you'll find yourself in the abrasion zone of woven wheat**.
>The ones whinging about the birth rates in relation to a toy are the small yapping dogs, who have no courage to go against society. They can only pile on ever more illogical accountability on young men. They will never back any real solutions. Ever. They're too weak and pathetic.
>It’s called the ‘Streisand’ effect for a reason. They literally don’t understand that their paranoia and zealotry manifests the exact opposite of what they think they’re doing.
>imagine a puzzle where every piece is a jew and the puzzle keeps expanding. its not a puzzle but a shameless and unceasing occupancy. i dont think there could be enough books detailing every instance of nefarious jewish thought. maybe a book of the damned, a recursion of jewish thought into oblivion
>You need to mock them for it like how they mock you. All the "white fragility" etc rhetoric that they spent the past several decades pushing needs to be thrown back in their faces. It took 70+ years of anti-white culture being institutionalized before whites finally started saying enough was enough, jews can't even handle 1 year of non-institutionalized criticism and they are already losing their minds and lashing out at everyone. yet somehow we are the "fragile" ones lmao.
I read an article precovid about how people are basically bankrupt because of these "loans" that aren't reflected in their credit score. These people are existing on these revolving loans for their daily expenses. If this does happen, a lot of people are going to suddenly see their interest rates skyrocket as their creditscore plummets due to, too much debt
It's been more than a year since I gave up on Google Search (I switched to Kagi.com and never looked back). I don't miss it. It had gotten terrible. It's gotten worse since, thanks to AI (of course):
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Google's a very bad company, of course. I mean, the company has lost *three* federal antitrust trials in the past 18 months. But that's not why I quit Google Search: I stopped searching with Google because Google Search *suuuucked*.
In the spring of 2024, it was clear that Google had lost the spam wars. Its search results were *full* of spammy garbage content whose creators' SEO was a million times better than their content.
Every kind of Google Search result was bad, and results for the names of products were the *worst*, an endless cesspit of affiliate link-strewn puffery and scam sites.
It's not that the internet lacks for high-quality, reliable reviews. There are plenty of experts out there who subject a wide range of products to careful assessment, laboratory tests, and extensive comparisons. The sites where these reviews appear are instantly recognizable, and it's a great relief to find them.
One such site is Housefresh.com, whose proprietor, Giselle Navarro, runs a team that produces extremely detailed, objective, high-quality reviews of air purifiers. This is an important product category: if you're someone with bad allergies or an immunocompromising condition, finding the right air purifier can exert enormous influence on your health outcomes.
As good as Housefresh are at reviewing air purifiers, they are far less skilled at tricking Google. The world champions of this are spammers, content farms that produce garbage summaries of Amazon reviews and shovel them into massive, hidden sections of once-reputable websites like Forbes.com and Better *Homes and Gardens*, and thus dominate the Google results for product review searches:
Google calls this "site reputation abuse" and has repeatedly vowed to put a stop to it, and has repeatedly, totally failed to do so. What's more, Google has laid of more than 10,000 workers, including "core teams," even while spending tens of billions of dollars on stock manipulation through "buyback" schemes:
Of course, the Housefresh team are smart cookies - hence the high caliber of their air purifier reviews - and they *could* apply that intelligence to figuring out how to use SEO to trick Google's algorithm. Rather than doing so, they took the high road: they applied all that prodigious analytical talent to researching and publishing on *Google's* systematic failures - and even collusion - with the spammers who are destroying the web.
This month, Housefresh released its latest report on Google's enshittification, this time with an emphasis on the "AI Overviews" that now surmount every search results page. Google has widely touted these as the future of search, a way to bypass the ad-strewn, popup-obscured, AI-sloppified (!) pages that it is seemingly powerless to filter out of its search corpus:
Rather than hunting through these SEO-winning garbage pages, you can simply refer to Google's AI Overview, which will summarize the best the internet has to offer, in hyperlegibile black sans-serif type on a white background, with key phrases helpfully highlighted in bold.
Most critiques of AI Overview have focused on how these AI Overviews are a betrayal of the underlying bargain between the web and its monopoly search engine, whereby we all write the web and let Google index it for free, and in exchange, Google will send us traffic in proportion to the quality of our work:
Google says adding more AI to its search engine will rejuvenate the internet. Others predict an apocalypse for websites. One thing is clear: this era of online history is closing.
This is true, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Google is a platform, which is to say, a two-sided marketplace that brings together readers and publishers (along with advertisers). The bargain with *publishers* is that Google will send them traffic in exchange for access to their content. But the deal with *readers* is that Google will help them answer their questions quickly and accurately.
If Google's marketing pitch for AI Overviews is to be believed, then Google is only shafting publishers in order to double down on its bargain with readers: to give us better access to high-quality information (recall Google's mission statement, "To organize the world's information and make it useful"). If that's true, then Google is the champion of readers in their long battle with publishers, a battle in which they are nearly helpless before publishers' abusive excesses.
This is a very canny move on Google's part. Publishers and advertisers have more concentrated money than readers, but the dominant theory of antitrust since the Reagan administration is something called "consumer welfare," which holds that monopolistic conduct is only to be condemned if it makes consumers worse off.
If a company screws its workers or suppliers to deliver better products and/or prices, then "consumer welfare" holds that the government should celebrate and protect the monopolist for improving "efficiency."
But all that is true only if Google AI Overviews are good. And they are very, very bad.
In the Housefresh report, titled "Beware of the Google AI salesman and its cronies," Navarro documents how Google's AI Overview is *wildly* bad at surfacing high-quality information.
Indeed, Google's Gemini chatbot seems to *prefer* the lowest-quality sources of information on the web, and to actively suppress negative information about products, *even when* that negative information comes from its favorite information source.
Indeed, Navarro identifies a kind of madlibs template that Gemini uses to assemble an AI overview in response to the query "Is the [name of air purifier] worth it?"
> The [model] air purifier is [a worthwhile investment/generally considered a good value for its price/a worthwhile purchase]. It's [praised/well-regarded] for its ability to [clean the air/remove particles/clean large rooms]. Whether the [product] is worth it depends on individual needs and priorities.
This is the shape of the response that Google's AI Overview shits out when you ask about *any* air purifier, including a model that Wirecutter called "the worst air purifier ever tested":
What's more, AI Overview will produce a response like this one even when you ask it about *air purifiers that don't exist*, like the "Levoit Core 5510," the "Winnix Airmega" and the "Coy Mega 700."
It gets worse, though. Even when you ask Google "What are the cons of [model of air purifier]?" AI Overview simply ignores them. If you persist, AI Overview will give you a result couched in sleazy sales patter, like "While it excels at removing viruses and bacteria, it is not as effective with dust, pet hair, pollen or other common allergens."
Sometimes, AI Overview "hallucinates" imaginary cons that don't appear on the pages it cites, like warnings about the dangers of UV lights in purifiers that don't actually have UV lights.
Google argues that AI Overview won't displace traffic to the sites it summarizes. The company points to the fact that the statements in an AI Overview are each linked to the web-page they come from.
This is a dubious proposition, predicated on the idea that people looking up a quick answer on a search engine will go on to follow all the footnotes and compare them to the results (this is something that peer reviewers for major scientific journals often fail at, after all).
But the existence of these citations allowed Navarro to compile statistics about the sources that Google relies on most heavily for information about product quality:
* 43.1% of these statements come from product manufacturers' marketing materials;
* 19.5% of these statements are sourced from pages that contain no information about the product.
Much of the remainder comes from the same "site reputation abuse" that Google said it would stop prioritizing two years ago. An alarming amount of this material is also AI generated: this is the "coprophagic AI" problem in which an AI ingests another AI's output, producing ever-more nonsensical results:
Adding "reddit" to a Google query is a well-known and still-useful way to get higher quality results out of Google. Redditors is full of real people giving their real opinions about products and services. No wonder that Reddit appears in 97.5% of product review queries:
Obviously, the same SEO scumbags who have been running circles around Google for years are perfecctly capable of colonizing and compromising Reddit, which has been rocked by a series of payola scandals in which the volunteer moderators of huge, reputable subreddit were caught taking bribes to allow SEO scumbags to spam their forums and steal their valor:
When it comes to product reviews, Google's AI Overviews consist of irrelevancies, PR nonsense, and affiliate spammer hype - all at the expense of genuine, high-quality information, which is still out there, on the web, waiting for you to find it.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai is unapologetic about the way that AI Overviews blurs the line between commercial pitches and neutral information, telling *Bloomberg*, "commercial information is information, too":
Which raises the question: why is Pichai so eager to enshittify his own service. After all, AI isn't a revenue center for Google - it's a cost center. Every day, Google's AI division takes a blowtorch the company's balance sheet, incinerating mountains of money while bringing in *nothing* (less than nothing, if you count all the users who are finding ways to de-Google their lives to escape the endless AI slop):
It's true that AI loses money for Google, but AI earns something far more important (at least from Pichai's perspective): a story about how Google can continue to grow.
Google's current price-to-earnings (PE) ratio is 20:1. That means that for every dollar Google brings in, investors are willing to spend $20 on Google's stock. This is a very high PE ratio, characteristic of "growth stocks" (companies that are growing every year).
A high PE ratio tells you that investors anticipate that the company will get (much) bigger in the foreseeable future, and they are "pricing in" that future growth when they trade the company's shares.
Companies with high PE ratios can use their stock in place of money - for example, they can acquire other companies with stock, or with a mix of cash and stock.
This lets high PE companies outbid mature companies - companies whose growth phase has ended - because stock is *endogeous* (it is produced within the company, by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet) and therefore abundant, while *dollars* are *exogenous* (produced by the central bank - again, by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet! - and then traded to the company by its customers) and thus scarce.
Google's status as a growth stock has allowed it to buy its way to dominance. After all, Google has repeatedly, continuously failed to create new products in-house, relying on acquisitions of other people's companies for its mobile technology, ad-tech, server management, maps, document collaboration...virtually every successful product the company has (except Search).
For so long as investors believe Google is growing, it can buy other companies with its abundant stock rather than its scarce dollars. It can also use that stock to hire key personnel, which especially important for AI teams, where compensation has blasted through the stratosphere:
Because Google needs to keep up the story that it is growing. Once Google stops growing, it becames a "mature" company and its PE ratio will fall from 20:1 to something more like 4:1, meaning an 80% collapse in the company's share price.
This would be very bad news for Googlers (whose personal wealth is disproportionately tied up in Google stock) and for Google itself (because many of its key personnel will depart when the shares they've banked for retirement collapse, and new hires will expect to be paid in scarce dollars, not abundant stock). For a company like Google, "maturity" is unlikely to be a steady state - rather, it's likely to be a prelude to collapse.
Which is why Google is so desperately sweaty to maintain the narrative about its growth. That's a difficult narrative to maintain, though. Google has 90% Search market-share, and nothing short of raising a billion humans to maturity and training them to be Google users (AKA "Google Classroom") will produce any growth in its Search market-share.
Google is so desperate to juice its search revenue that it actually *made search worse on purpose* so that you would have to run multiple searches (and see multiple rounds of ads) before you got the information you were seeking:
Investors have metabolized the story that AI will be a gigantic growth area, and so *all* the tech giants are in a battle to prove to investors that they will dominate AI as they dominated their own niches.
You aren't the target for AI, investors are: if they can be convinced that Google's 90% Search market share will soon be joined by a 90% AI market share, they will continue to treat this decidedly tired and run-down company like a prize racehorse at the starting-gate.
This is why you are so often tricked into using AI, by grazing a part of your screen with a fingertip, summoning a pestersome chatbot that takes 6 taps and 10 seconds to banish: companies like Google have made their product teams' bonuses contingent on getting normies to "use" AI and "use" is defined as "interact with AI for at least 10 seconds." Goodhart's Law ("any metric becomes a target") has turned every product you use into a trap for the unwary:
There's a cringe army of AI bros who are seemingly convinced that AI is going to become superintelligent and save us from ourselves - they think that AI companies are creating god. But the hundreds of billions being pumped into AI are not driven by this bizarre ideology. Rather, they are the product of material conditions, a system that sends high-flying companies into a nosedive the instant they stop climbing.
AI's merits and demerits are irrelevant to this: they pump AI because they *must* pump. It's why they pumped metaverse and cryptocurrency and every other absurd fad.
None of that changes the fact that Google Search has been terminally enshittified and it is misleading billions of people in service to this perverse narrative adventure. Google Search isn't fit for purpose, and it's hard to see how it ever will be again.
Support me this summer in the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop! This summer, I'm writing "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux that explains how to be an effective AI critic:
Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. He is the author of many books, most recently RADICALIZED and WALKAWAY, science fiction for adults; HOW TO DESTROY SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM, nonfiction about monopoly …
I looked at Kagi a while back and got turned off by the extensive advertising of their AI functionality on their main page. I'm trying to avoid AI tooling as much as possible and already use the &utm google shortcut (with still-shitty results, but no AI)
Got upset enough that I now run a small instance of #searxng which does a similar thing to #Kagi (searches across multiple services) but without its own index - a metasearch engine essentially. Strips out ads and AI responses and was moderately useful a little while ago for ascertaining that Google had heavily de-prioritised a blog post by @briankrebs - the interface indicates which services provided which results.
People should not use Kagi under any circumstances. Yes I agree Google is useless these days, but Kagi is run by a very bad person, and they run it poorly.
@freediverx @giflian I've heard good things about Kagi but haven't looked into it. Currently using Qwant. Would Kagi offer a trial period, by any chance? 👀
Death Stranding 2 is the perfect example of moder day, man have nothing to fight for but, they still have to make them deliveries, while the system gave superpowers to woman, while they been too lady to do the delivery themselves. and the only one giving you emotional support, is a Vtuber.
And from the WTAF dept, quite a bombshell from ProPublica today:
"Microsoft is using engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems — with minimal supervision by U.S. personnel — leaving some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary, a ProPublica investigation has found."
"The arrangement, which was critical to Microsoft winning the federal government’s cloud computing business a decade ago, relies on U.S. citizens with security clearances to oversee the work and serve as a barrier against espionage and sabotage."
"But these workers, known as “digital escorts,” often lack the technical expertise to police foreign engineers with far more advanced skills, ProPublica found. Some are former military personnel with little coding experience who are paid barely more than minimum wage for the work."
The Pentagon bans foreign citizens from accessing highly sensitive data, but Microsoft bypasses this by using engineers in China and elsewhere to remotely instruct American “escorts” who may lack expertise to identify malicious code.
Avoir halluciné ou avoir utilisé une IA qui a halluciné une référence, c'est... hallucinant pour une personne qui se pique de pensée critique et de démarche scientifique.
C'est aussi la preuve qu'il n'a pas lu au moins certaines références qu'il cite.
It's fantastic to see other people saying what I've been saying about the government for years now. Yes, all branches of federal government and right down to state, county, and local governments, are guilty of treason.
Per ací venen unes quantes coses sobre la campanya NO FINANCES L'ÓDI d' @espaisvalencia ... Passeu-vos també pel perfil a fer una ullada que està en marxa! media.cat/2025/07/07/els-lampi…
Activistes s’organitzen arreu dels Països Catalans per posar fi al finançament publicitari dels mitjans de l’extrema dreta. Aquestes campanyes, però, tenen un cost personal que cal estar disposat a assumir
Jazzilla
in reply to Alex Russell • • •