It’s definitely possible, but such an AI would probably be good enough to take over every other field too. So it’s not like you can avoid it by choosing something else anyway.
And the disruption would be large enough that governments will have to react in some way.
They’re the same as any other megacorp, no better or worse.
There are two things (or two aspects of the same one problem) I dislike about them specifically though:
The Google account bundles together too many disparate services - which means if their bots decide to arbitrarily block you for some reason, that affects your email, photo backup, YouTube account, Drive, phone, docs, etc.
They have no usable support. Whenever something bad happens, your only recourse is to complain about it on Twitter and hope it blows up enough that someone with power to change things will notice it and manually review the decision. Otherwise you’re stuck in bot support hell. Many such cases.
This is very unlikely, because if they did it to more than a handful of people, the pattern would become immediately obvious.
Barely hanging on in the post-AI wasteland.
First step would be tagging posts/comments, to clearly separate ones meant as pure opinion from ones meant as a factual claim. Then tagging for sourced/unsourced/disputed/misleading/omitting crucial details, etc. claims. Then tagging things like how confident the poster feels about what they’re saying (e.g. from “I heard it somewhere” to “I’ve seen it with my own eyes on multiple occasions”)
Then you would need easy to inspect metadata showing the sourcing chain all the way to the origin. And ability to comment on that (e.g. if some source’s claims are misinterpreted and the source doesn’t actually claim the thing).
Then you would need the people to actually care about facts, even if the facts go against their existing beliefs or preferences.
Also people need to be able to think more with varying degrees of uncertainty built-in, not just “this is definitely true”/“this is definitely false” (unless there is enough material to back that up).
Ok, so Facebook knows I have a VR headset and bought some games, and they’re using that information in targeted advertising (as much as things like EU law allows them where I live)? Quite frankly, I don’t care - this doesn’t really affect me in any practical sense - and again, thanks to existing laws, I can actually opt out from a large part of it.
From a practical standpoint, I would have a much bigger problem with a situation that exists with Google, where some people had access to their email and other services disabled, because some stupid bot classified their comments in YouTube livestream as spam with basically no recourse until the story blew up in tech news (https://gamerant.com/markiplier-stream-ban-lock-users-out-of-gmail/). The root of the issue there is that those accounts just shouldn’t be linked, and what you do on YouTube shouldn’t affect your access to your own email etc.
You may argue that this is simply down to the fact that Facebook doesn’t have a strong enough market position to get away with such practices, and that they would do it too if they could, but as it stand today, the giants like Google or Apple are far worse. (And with most of these problems, as well as other monopolistic practices of tech giants, regulation can be a large part of the solution.)
Everything that has a store requires an account.
The short time during which they required a Facebook account (i.e. an account linked to an unrelated service) was a fuck-up, but they have since reversed that decision. Now it’s just a separate standalone VR-related account.
If anything, that is still better than the current Google/Apple situation with their accounts, which link together a bunch of unrelated services (photos, email, payments, storage sync, etc.) in an inseparable way.
Oculus. No way they would have otherwise had the money to make cheap standalone VR headsets like the Quest.
That’s not what the word predatory means.
Usually that has to do with things like pricing (both initially and any future increases), handling of maintenance, problems, and of things like late payments, etc.
You’re looking at it once again purely through the lens of how it affects the existing owners. For example an existing long term owner in the area would not be considered predatory based on your criteria no matter how much price gouging they engage in.
Don’t know about Russia itself, but it was a big win for all the former eastern bloc satellite states that got to free themself from the influence of Russian imperialism.
At first glance, this just sounds like a “keep renters out because they’re bad for the existing owners’ property values” (as well as being on average younger, less wealthy, etc.) policy.
The same kind of reasoning is often used as a pretense to block construction and perpetuate the existing shortage. Pure self-interest masquerading as a good cause.
Not really. People still love cats, and cats are as carnivorous as it gets.
On Reddit, joke (usually bad joke, low effort meme or pop culture reference) comments were the absolute worst kind of spam that destroyed the readability of comment threads.
That sort of content belongs in its own space, not polluting places that are still worth reading.