Thought provoking comments. Let me respond:
1. The value in an "AI censorship death star" is not to censor past topics, but to censor upcoming topics in realtime. So while the data cannot be unscraped, this throws a spanner in the works for scraping going forward (which is what matters)
2. Using 2021 numbers there were around 500 million tweets per day, meaning you would need 500,000 bots in the botnet. Certainly possible to have a botnet of that size, however I suspect Twitter would be able to detect commonality in such a large botnet and disable it. But yes, possible, even though I rate it as unlikely.
3. You might be surprised with how sophisticated the state sponsored censorship apparatus is. #twitterfiles showed that AI was used by government agencies to censor Twitter under nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m , so we don't have to debate this - the empirical evidence shows us that AI gets used. It's way more effective than anything ever used in the past.
1. How have WeChat and other Chinese social media platforms been implementing censorship?
2. What's the difference between a bot that only "reads" tweets (never posts) and a user that only reads tweets? How would you cluster such behaviour (especially when each user/bot is tuned to "read" different content from another member in the cluster)?
3. For as long as a platform enforces policy requests to censor it really doesn't matter what tool is used to determine what to censor. The enforcement will and does get abused time and time again. On your point of the AI being an effective tool for the #twitterfiles, the thing that was surely more effective then AI is the decree that only "trusted" sources should speak/amplified on a topic. Once this decree is put out the AI is just sprinkled on top of the enforcement so that when the censorship gets called out the ones who wrote/enforced the policy can say "the AI did it".
Nah... this is all hogwash.
1. The data has already been scrapped and cannot be unscrapped.
2. Bot nets negate rate limits. It's well documented that Twitter bot nets have accounts that have been running since the early 2010s which Elon doesn't seem to bothered by. These botnets would happily become Big Data vendors selling tweets with a more liberal usage policy on that data.
3. Censorship is a policy enforced in the most rudimentary ways. Why would a censors enforce it's policies via AI when it could just be enforced via KYC?
ig:nostre.arte
I need to hike more ðŸ˜
Rage fix the world.
Jazz is not rap music.
Technically... Yes. Tea is better the more relaxed you are. Otherwise the tea would've tasted bitter tinted by my own frustrations.
Unsafe, most likely. Especially considering that some communities are reluctant to help you when something goes wrong. Even witnesses of a crime will act like they didn't see anything.
But I doubt it's unprofitable (maybe as a consequence of it being unsafe though). Quite sure there are people willing to pay top dollar for an Uber in these areas (also considering that Uber drivers may actually reside in these neighbourhoods).
Lupe Fiasco made a song on a similar topic touching some of the reasons why it would be the case that some areas get excluded from service.
Saved myself some hours by discovering this command before making a cup of tea.
sudo apt-get install android-sdk-platform-tools-common
Incredible piece of music.
Now I know how it got lost. ðŸ˜
nostr:note1f5d38w3fwth0d3d7wxezjax9av3sujstruaqxr7ekjpjca2qttgs00kscu
I had posted a note on Tyrannical Entrepreneurship but seems it got lost in the ether.
What does it say about an area when Uber drivers don't want to go there?
An artisan can craft a product that perfectly suites a users needs, but as long as the user fails to understand what is it about the product that actually suites their needs then the user will request the most inconsequential aspects of the product.
This is not too bad of a reality, it just gets tragic when the artisan chooses to specialize in producing the inconsequential.
Death is on the tip of her tongue.
Do we call the bear market babies?