|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Nov 18, 2024 11:49:18 GMT 12
What's with is "Tena koe Mark"
What is wrong the good old English way of addressing somebody like
Hello Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 18, 2024 14:08:47 GMT 12
What's with is "Tena koe Mark" What is wrong the good old English way of addressing somebody like Hello Mark Saying Hello is a way of applying Colonialist oppression. Didn't you know SJB?!? Gee, you are racist. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 18, 2024 20:37:47 GMT 12
Slightly different to the general thrust of this thread, but AI travel influencers sounds like a can of worms we don't need. How to get people to lust for the un-obtainable. Aitana jumps off a yacht in Ibiza. Ester gets cosy on a private jet. Nyah poses in Santorini. They’re the smiling platonic ideal of the travel influencer: young, attractive, posting from exotic locales. But something’s off in these Instagram posts, and it’s not a heavy filter. None of the women are human. They’re images generated by artificial intelligence. AI image generators like Dall-E and Midjourney have made it easier than ever to create lifelike renderings of people, places and things. Over the past two years, users began churning out Facebook clickbait, glossy headshots and political deepfakes. Brands, tourism boards and tech-savvy opportunists followed, making synthetic travel influencers who share travel tips, selfies, cliché musings and risqué bikini shots. Das is nicht human Emma introduces herself in front of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, one of the most famous historic sites in Germany. She has straight blonde hair, cut just above her shoulders. “Hi, I am Emma,” the video begins, the voice enunciating with a crisp British accent. “And I am the first AI influencer of Travel Destination Germany.” The movements of Emma’s mouth would not pass a lip-reading test; they rearrange in a pixilated jerk. A car honks in the background, as if Emma were recording near the busy street shown in the background. Germany’s tourism board launched Emma on October 17. Part travel influencer, part AI chatbot, “she” is on Instagram and the German National Tourist Board (GNTB) website, where people can ask “her” for travel advice. www.stuff.co.nz/travel/360490038/ai-travel-influencers-are-here-human-travellers-hate-it |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Nov 20, 2024 8:11:07 GMT 12
not often that I would refer to the Guardian, but they seem to have the only report on this latest development www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/18/australian-parliamentary-inquiry-stops-short-of-backing-social-media-ban-for-under-16sopens A parliamentary committee examining the impact of social media on Australian society has recommended users be given the power to alter, reset or turn off algorithms, as well as be provided with greater privacy protection, but has stopped short of recommending a ban on under-16s accessing social media.
and closes On Friday the government named the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme will run the expected six-month trial of age assurance technology, including testing ID credentials, age estimation, age inference, and parental certifications or controls. Australians will be invited to test the different technologies during the trial.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said there will be no grandfathering for existing users, and department officials told Senate estimates last month that every user will have to go through the age assurance process – not just those under 16.
The trial will not be completed before parliament considers the legislation mandating a ban on under-16s, and providers will have 12 months to implement age assurance, pushing the launch of ban past the next federal election.
The latter sounding very much like a Trojan Horse to introduce full Digital ID
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Nov 23, 2024 14:14:04 GMT 12
Censorship and thought control seems a very appropriate forum to put this in.
I got an email from Facebook, no idea why I suddenly got it though.
In it they say they have sussed what I like and recommend these to be my Facebook friends (a term that I find so very very sad)
Waimauku and Muriwai 100%
I love GOD & JESUS our Saviour Group
Not ashamed of Jesus Christ Group
Lost and Found Pets NZ Group
Ageing Gracefully Group
Positive Quotes group
Prayer WAR ROOM Group
Didn't know Muriwai was big enough for more than just a dairy
Has anyone or anything murdered more people in their name than religion? Can't stand the stuff.
I did suss rescue dogs a few months back
I'm ageing already but fuck gracefully, I'm fully intending to to it as disgracefully as I can.
Positive Quotes may have got a look in if I did twatbook but my 4-5 minutes a year only gives me enough time to find the way out.
And there is a massive problem we face today,'we recommend for you', it's sending people down holes many can never find their way back out of. The first thing I do is turn off recommendations as 95% of them are just pure shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 23, 2024 16:39:35 GMT 12
Censorship and thought control seems a very appropriate forum to put this in. I got an email from Facebook, no idea why I suddenly got it though. In it they say they have sussed what I like and recommend these to be my Facebook friends (a term that I find so very very sad) Waimauku and Muriwai 100% I love GOD & JESUS our Saviour Group Not ashamed of Jesus Christ Group Lost and Found Pets NZ Group Ageing Gracefully Group Positive Quotes group Prayer WAR ROOM Group Didn't know Muriwai was big enough for more than just a dairy Has anyone or anything murdered more people in their name than religion? Can't stand the stuff. I did suss rescue dogs a few months back I'm ageing already but fuck gracefully, I'm fully intending to to it as disgracefully as I can. Positive Quotes may have got a look in if I did twatbook but my 4-5 minutes a year only gives me enough time to find the way out. And there is a massive problem we face today,'we recommend for you', it's sending people down holes many can never find their way back out of. The first thing I do is turn off recommendations as 95% of them are just pure shit. There is a name for it, what social media do to get you further down a rabbit hole. I think it is "bias reinforcement" or something. Vaccine safety is the best example. A tad of profile one way and all your google searches will say its safe as houses. A tad of profile the other way and every time you google vaccines all you will get is the devil incarnate popping up. Damn near impossible to get straight up, unbiased information. It covers all aspects of what we think, see, hear and read. Really fucking spooky. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Nov 23, 2024 19:20:00 GMT 12
There is a name for it, what social media do to get you further down a rabbit hole. I think it is "bias reinforcement" or something. Vaccine safety is the best example. A tad of profile one way and all your google searches will say its safe as houses. A tad of profile the other way and every time you google vaccines all you will get is the devil incarnate popping up. Damn near impossible to get straight up, unbiased information. It covers all aspects of what we think, see, hear and read. Really fucking spooky. Confirmation bias? Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Nov 24, 2024 7:17:47 GMT 12
And there is a massive problem we face today,'we recommend for you', it's sending people down holes many can never find their way back out of. The first thing I do is turn off recommendations as 95% of them are just pure shit. There is a name for it, what social media do to get you further down a rabbit hole. I think it is "bias reinforcement" or something. Vaccine safety is the best example. A tad of profile one way and all your google searches will say its safe as houses. A tad of profile the other way and every time you google vaccines all you will get is the devil incarnate popping up. Damn near impossible to get straight up, unbiased information. It covers all aspects of what we think, see, hear and read. Really fucking spooky. I do twatbook maybe twice a year for 15min and only to suss for any local weaners so I don't do feeds.
EVERY switch possible is turned to 'no recommendations'
My system totally wipes all history, cookies and so on the moment I close the browser so every time I go to a site it see's a virgin visitor. The only site that is currently allowed to store stuff, and then only limited, is this one as I try to find out what the glitch is, which I think I may finally have.
'Recommended for you' and 'your feed' are more dangerous than a 3yo playing with a loaded gun. What's worse is some fuckers set them up intentionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Nov 25, 2024 7:15:24 GMT 12
Austria was the birth place of that guy and his movement , quite telling that they are bailing from that South African guys movement . Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 25, 2024 8:20:27 GMT 12
Austria was the birth place of that guy and his movement , quite telling that they are bailing from that South African guys movement . This raises another question. It's called Social Media, right? Why are business even on social media? With the complete cesspit that most platforms are, I don't think it enhances most businesses reputations having a presence on 'socials'. I am probably old fashioned, but if I want to get hold of a business, I go to their website and either phone or email them. I don't send them a DM on snapchat, or whatsapp or Tit-tok and if I wanted a coherent response I aren't going to ask the question in FB messenger, or even worse, people that put a comment on a post, the classic is asking for a quote from tradies or mechanics or some utter nonsense. I can understand advertising on Socials, but that is entirely different to having a presence, and conducting your call centre via Tit-tok instead of via your actual call centre. and don't get me started on bots popping up every time you go to a website. They are about as useful as tits on a bull and really invasive. Recent example, Stanmore Bay Pool was closed cause they don't pay their lifegaurds enough (or cause the sacked them all during the lockdowns). I checked on their website and it said they were open. Went down there with the kids, all excited for a swim. No sorry, we are closed (not enough lifeguards) - we posted it on FB - WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK I"D CHECK FB WHEN I HAVE ALEADY CHECKED YOUR WEBSITE?!?!?!? |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Nov 27, 2024 9:17:41 GMT 12
from across the Tasman on the one hand good news, The Misinformation legislation has been dumped www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2024/11/25/misinformation-bill-dumped-agendabut the bad news is they are still steaming ahead with the proposed under 16 ban on social media access, which in fact is nothing more than a Trojan Horse to force Digital ID on everyone to prove their age. Very disappointingly the Liberals are supporting this draconian legislation. Note this contradiction from RCR Bites In the final sitting days of the year, the Australian government is attempting to ram through the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which would require social media companies to prevent children under 16 from using the platforms.
The Bill has been heavily criticised for restricting free speech and for its privacy implications, since all users must verify their age when using the platforms which may require a Digital ID. Such an ID could easily be expanded to decide if any person can access the internet.
On Monday, it was revealed in a Senate hearing that although the Bill will apply to Youtube it will not apply to Pornhub, which struck many observers as inappropriate given its stated purpose is to prevent “harm”.
Citizens were given 1 day to make submissions and theconversation.com/banning-under-16s-from-social-media-may-be-unconstitutional-and-ripe-for-high-court-challenge-244282just be mindful that the NZ government is watching this with interest, no doubt contemplating similar legislation |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Nov 28, 2024 5:37:07 GMT 12
I really was hoping baring people from entering nuzld was a left wing thought control game, but it appears it's not.
I have listened to her a couple of times, seemed a bit crack pot on a couple of topics (they didn't land on the moon, care factor of zero from me personally) and I wouldn't go much further than my front door to listen to her, but overall sounded like she was a long way from a far right extremist.
Email from the FSU.
Sorry, I know it's late... I was just putting my kids down to sleep, and was called by a journalist to comment on the Candace Owens story.
I thought- 'What's happened now with Candace Owens?'
If, like me, late this afternoon you missed it, Immigration New Zealand has barred Candace Owens from entering New Zealand. It seems (incredibly) the best response New Zealand now has to opinions that some find distasteful or wrong is to exclude them from the conversation entirely.
Like many Kiwis, you may not even know who Candace Owens is.
A conservative commentator from the United States (formerly on the Daily Wire with Ben Shapiro), she has been accused of 'far-right' and extremist views. For this reason, since she announced her tour of Australia and New Zealand, would-be-censors have been campaigning, like they did with Posie Parker, to have immigration officials block her entry.
They succeeded in having Australian officials do this last month. Now, the same thing has happened here.
A sophisticated country is able to deal with opinions that some find controversial, distasteful, or even dangerous. The most mature way to deal with these views is to challenge and rebut them, not to exclude them from the conversation.
Immigration New Zealand is arguing that section 15 of the Immigration Act requires them to exclude individuals who have been barred from entering New Zealand and who have been barred from entering other countries. "Nothing to see here, our hands are tied" is basically all they can muster.
Firstly, we think they are wrong. Our legal team has started burning the (almost) midnight oil, but we're actively looking at challenging this decision, on the basis Immigration is acting unlawfully. (I'll spare you the legal details, but it comes down to the technical definitions of 'excluded).
Secondly, even if she was 'excluded', why on earth should we have law that automatically means we then barr others entry. Should we shut out Salman Rushdie because the Iranians don't like him?
Every year hundreds, if not thousands of less well-known people who have been denied entry to Australia have been allowed to visit NZ.
This action by Immigration NZ is a smokescreen.
Public calls by Young Labour over the past few months to exclude Owens from NZ shores is the more likely reason for the action. Anyone who’s been following this story knows this.
But who at Immigration NZ would be willing to risk admitting that their refusal is based on Owens’ controversial opinions, right?
It’s easier for officials to fudge their reading of the legislation than to admit they’re vetting a person for expressing personal beliefs which, though highly controversial, are still permitted under section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
But we know censorship has a nasty way of boomeranging back on censors.
Mark my words: Candace Owens will come to New Zealand eventually to hold public events. And when she does, many more people will attend than otherwise would have, as a result of these attempts to shut her out.
Here's what we've done (in the past 2 hours):
1. We've written to the Ministers of Immigration (Erica Stanford is the Minister of Immigration, but Chris Penk, as the Associate Minister, is actually responsible for these decisions).
We're calling on the Government to exercise discretion and allow Owens entry.
2. Our legal team is working to challenge this decision. In our minds, this isn't about Candace Owens herself. It's about the principle, that the Government blocking individuals from speaking in New Zealand because we dislike their opinions is a dangerous road.
3. We've contacted media: while some Kiwis will think it's a 'victory' that Owens has been excluded, I'm confident that New Zealanders around the country are big enough to deal with others' perspectives, whether they agree or not.
We need to ensure the public is aware of this decision and the Government is held accountable.
4. That's where you come in! We need your help to put pressure on the Government, and to ensure we are able to fund this legal work.
Chris Penk (Chris.Penk@parliament.govt.nz), is the Associate Minister of Immigration who has the authority to use his discretion to allow Candace Owens is. Seeing as there is no legitimate argument to exclude her (other than 'the Australians did' - what, are we an Australian State now? -), he should grant her entry. An email from you, saying exactly that, will help get his attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Nov 28, 2024 7:04:38 GMT 12
I really was hoping baring people from entering nuzld was a left wing thought control game, but it appears it's not. I have listened to her a couple of times, seemed a bit crack pot on a couple of topics (they didn't land on the moon, care factor of zero from me personally) and I wouldn't go much further than my front door to listen to her, but overall sounded like she was a long way from a far right extremist. Email from the FSU. Sorry, I know it's late... I was just putting my kids down to sleep, and was called by a journalist to comment on the Candace Owens story.
I thought- 'What's happened now with Candace Owens?'
If, like me, late this afternoon you missed it, Immigration New Zealand has barred Candace Owens from entering New Zealand. It seems (incredibly) the best response New Zealand now has to opinions that some find distasteful or wrong is to exclude them from the conversation entirely.
Like many Kiwis, you may not even know who Candace Owens is.
A conservative commentator from the United States (formerly on the Daily Wire with Ben Shapiro), she has been accused of 'far-right' and extremist views. For this reason, since she announced her tour of Australia and New Zealand, would-be-censors have been campaigning, like they did with Posie Parker, to have immigration officials block her entry.
They succeeded in having Australian officials do this last month. Now, the same thing has happened here.
A sophisticated country is able to deal with opinions that some find controversial, distasteful, or even dangerous. The most mature way to deal with these views is to challenge and rebut them, not to exclude them from the conversation.
Immigration New Zealand is arguing that section 15 of the Immigration Act requires them to exclude individuals who have been barred from entering New Zealand and who have been barred from entering other countries. "Nothing to see here, our hands are tied" is basically all they can muster.
Firstly, we think they are wrong. Our legal team has started burning the (almost) midnight oil, but we're actively looking at challenging this decision, on the basis Immigration is acting unlawfully. (I'll spare you the legal details, but it comes down to the technical definitions of 'excluded).
Secondly, even if she was 'excluded', why on earth should we have law that automatically means we then barr others entry. Should we shut out Salman Rushdie because the Iranians don't like him?
Every year hundreds, if not thousands of less well-known people who have been denied entry to Australia have been allowed to visit NZ.
This action by Immigration NZ is a smokescreen.
Public calls by Young Labour over the past few months to exclude Owens from NZ shores is the more likely reason for the action. Anyone who’s been following this story knows this.
But who at Immigration NZ would be willing to risk admitting that their refusal is based on Owens’ controversial opinions, right?
It’s easier for officials to fudge their reading of the legislation than to admit they’re vetting a person for expressing personal beliefs which, though highly controversial, are still permitted under section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
But we know censorship has a nasty way of boomeranging back on censors.
Mark my words: Candace Owens will come to New Zealand eventually to hold public events. And when she does, many more people will attend than otherwise would have, as a result of these attempts to shut her out.
Here's what we've done (in the past 2 hours):
1. We've written to the Ministers of Immigration (Erica Stanford is the Minister of Immigration, but Chris Penk, as the Associate Minister, is actually responsible for these decisions).
We're calling on the Government to exercise discretion and allow Owens entry.
2. Our legal team is working to challenge this decision. In our minds, this isn't about Candace Owens herself. It's about the principle, that the Government blocking individuals from speaking in New Zealand because we dislike their opinions is a dangerous road.
3. We've contacted media: while some Kiwis will think it's a 'victory' that Owens has been excluded, I'm confident that New Zealanders around the country are big enough to deal with others' perspectives, whether they agree or not.
We need to ensure the public is aware of this decision and the Government is held accountable.
4. That's where you come in! We need your help to put pressure on the Government, and to ensure we are able to fund this legal work.
Chris Penk (Chris.Penk@parliament.govt.nz), is the Associate Minister of Immigration who has the authority to use his discretion to allow Candace Owens is. Seeing as there is no legitimate argument to exclude her (other than 'the Australians did' - what, are we an Australian State now? -), he should grant her entry. An email from you, saying exactly that, will help get his attention. I wonder what David cumins position is ? Owen is openly anti semetic . She also describes herself as libertarian so the timing of her visit is interesting with David Seymour’s treaty principles bill front and foremost at the moment . She also a strong advocate for black rights in the US . Then there’s the small matter of the Christchurch shooter saying he was influenced by her anti Islamic immigrant stance . Lastly she has ties to the GOP and supports trump , why the fuck are they sending people out to countries that have volatile political and societal issues unfolding ? And what would be her main topics ? She’s an extremely mixed bag conflicting ideas which would be fine if she wasn’t tied to an incoming Govt of another country . Do we need American interference right now ? |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 28, 2024 7:32:04 GMT 12
I was just coming to post on this.
Very tenuous reason to deny her entry.
Strange world we find ourselves in when Immigration NZ are acting as censor. That is all it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Nov 28, 2024 7:40:33 GMT 12
I was just coming to post on this. Very tenuous reason to deny her entry. Strange world we find ourselves in when Immigration NZ are acting as censor. That is all it is. I say follow the money . How is she getting paid and by whom ? And is she doing it from the goodness of her heart in best interest of New Zealand ? Immigration nz is the easiest way to block entry , someone else is calling the shots which would ultimately be the PM on advice from people who have the time and means to get intel . |
|
