Perhaps they’re confusing “open model” with “OpenAI” which is more of a misnomer given it’s increasingly cloistered state.

But I tend to see people angry at the massive waste of resources in the enormous privatized patches of turf. Grok, for instance, fucking up a low income community in Mississippi with it’s fleet of gas generators.

There are a number of open models.

The complaint is not with the consumer grade home rolled models.

And IT departments having a choice but forcing windows on users deserve to be burned at the stake.

Not a small thing to rip all the wires out of the walls. Moving to an entirely new office-wide OS is a heavy lift.

Say weird some more.

It looks like you’re being forced to notice the contradictions at last.

That’s all you need to read.

The fact that you think this tells me you’re utterly insincere.

Removed by mod

She agreed that he was a criminal when asked.

Hasan then pivoted to complaining about Jill calling Biden and Netanyahu criminals, while asserting our sponsorship of Israel isn’t relevant to the question of war criminality.

It’s all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned.

The issue isn’t quite so much copyright as privatization. And the distinction between “freedom on the high seas” and “AI” gets into the idea of the long term ownership of media.

One of the problems I run into, as a consumer of media, is that I can purchase a piece of content and then discover the service or medium I purchased it on has gone defunct. Maybe its an old video game with a console that’s broken or no longer able to hook up to my TV. Maybe its a movie I bought on a streaming service that no longer exists. Maybe its personal content I’ve created that I’d like to transfer between devices or extend to other people. Maybe its a piece of media I don’t trust sending through the mail, so I’d prefer to transfer it digitally. Maybe its a piece of media I can’t buy, because no one is selling it anymore.

Under the Torrent model, I can give or get a copy of a piece of media I already own in a format that my current set of devices support. Like with a library.

Under the AI model, somebody else gets to try and extort licensing fees from me for a thing they never legally possessed to begin with.

I see a huge distinction between these two methods of data ownership and distribution.

I’m surprised ISPs haven’t found a way to start issuing fines and fees for alleged copyright violations.

Irrelevant.

That’s what Mehdi Hasan is asserting, which is weird when you consider how Netanyahu and Putin are allies.

Why keep putting up this defense of Netanyahu if you’re so focused on getting Jill to denounce Putin? Why does Israel become this backdoor by which you can tacitly trade weapons and fossil fuels internationally?

If you had read the interview, you would have known that.

Have you read the interview? You don’t seem to want to acknowledge anything Hasan has actually said.

Is now a bad time to point out that Netanyahu and Putin are allies?

Weird that Hasan would work so hard to defend Netanyahu.

I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes.

She said the word yes.

Removed by mod

You asked if he was trying to defend Netanyahu.

Mehdi Hasan: So why have you called Biden and Netanyahu war criminals?

Why keep raising this question? Why not focus on Putin alone? Why does Hasan need to inject Biden into this conversation?

And now you’re doubling down on it?

I’m asking questions. You don’t seem comfortable thinking about the answers?

Removed by mod

She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal

“In so many words, yes.”

Hasan won’t take “yes” for an answer. Which is a weird thing to do, given that he keeps looping back around to attack her for her condemnation of Biden and Netanyahu.

She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances

Under what circumstances is Hasan conceding that Netanyahu is a war criminal? All he does is deflect blame for war crimes away from Netanyahu, which is a really weird thing to do across multiple interview questions.

she won’t say it directly

She will and she did. Of course, Hasan keeps cutting her responses off to interject with new defenses of Netanyahu. Which is, again, a very weird way to establish Jill as a Putin-defender. It seems more like Hasan is hedging on Netanyahu and trying to back Jill into recanting her views on Israel.

Unlike Jill Stein, he has no problem calling a war criminal a war criminal.

Who does he call a war criminal in the interview?

He’s telling Jill what she said about Netanyahu, but he doesn’t seem to agree. He keeps doubling back and insisting she needs to condemn Putin (which she then does) and using that as a shield for Netanyahu in follow-up.

Jill Stein: So what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is a criminal and murderous war.

Mehdi Hasan: And he’s a war criminal who should be on trial?

Jill Stein: Well, by implication.

Mehdi Hasan: You’re struggling here to say something very simple. This is why people have their doubts about you with Russia. Why is Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but not Vladimir Putin?

???

What does “by implication” mean to Hasan?

Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.

Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.

Jill Stein: With Russia it’s far more complicated.

Mehdi Hasan: Either you’re a war criminal or you’re not. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?

Jill Stein: In so many words, yes he is.

So they’re in agreement. Right?

Mehdi Hasan: I don’t know “what so many words” — Butch [Ware, Stein’s running mate], is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?

Jill Stein: Let me say that whatever you think he is —

Mehdi Hasan: It’s not about what I think. I’m asking you. You’re running for President.

Jill Stein: If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal unless you have a…

Mehdi Hasan: So why have you called Biden and Netanyahu war criminals?

Jill Stein: Because we have a clear strategy and we have very strong support across the world.

Is Hasan trying to defend Biden and Netanyahu?

Because Jill Stein repeatedly agreed with Hasan on Putin being a war criminal. But Hasan keeps doubling back and trying to defend the American President and his Israeli ally from the accusation.

For example, networks like BBC America fell under less scrutiny because legacy regulations around paid cable broadcasters were less stringent than those given to free airwaves.

Internet communications are functionally paid cable broadcasts.

That all being said, all of these regulations, old and new, are basically trying to do the same thing - limit propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors.

They are not, and that’s where this line of argument falls apart. The purpose of these regulations is to limit ownership of media institutions not propaganda opportunities for adversarial actors. If Steven Mnuchin’s group wants to take ownership of TikTok and run identical content, he’s free to do so. The important thing is that his insider business partners lay claim to the profit generated by the property.

What’s more, if Mnuchin is under the influence of a foreign government - his Saudi investors or UK/German financial allies or even other Chinese state actors using his firm as a foreign investment vehicle - that’s also fine from the perspective of the US government.

While it is inevitable that a Mnuchin owned property will see editorial content in line with his Trumpy friends, in the same way that Elon’s takeover of Twitter has turned it into a slurry of Apartheid South African style bigotry, this isn’t the purpose of the forced divestment. It’s just an anticipated consequence.

IMHO, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to look at what’s going on in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and say “maybe the CCP shouldn’t have easy access to a major media algorithm where stars are literally praised for their ability to ‘influence.’”

Wrt Hong Kong, isn’t this exactly what they were protesting? Chinese bureaucrats stepping in and closing off communications to the outside world, on the grounds that American liberal media might trick Hong Kong residents into violent disruption of the municipal economy?

If you’re a Free Hong Kong kind of guy, I would think the pacification of the city under Beijing rule is exactly what you don’t want to see. Similarly, in Taiwan, if people are being cut off from communicating between the island and the mainland, I would say that’s sending these two regions in exactly the wrong direction.

It’s akin to the mistake the Great Powers made wrt North/South Korea or East/West German during the Berlin Wall era. These divided states ratchet up tension as individuals lose contact with one another and states become a hot-house of domestically produced misinformation.