• DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    When a regular person murders someone - life in prison.

    When We Love Genocide LLC murders 12 families - $3.43 fine.

  • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Yes but Aaron made the rookie mistake of not being a multibillionaire with a whole building of lawyers to fight on his behalf.

    • Forester@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Stealing is bad but we celebrate Robin Hood because he stole from the corrupt and gave to the needy

  • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    Moral of the story never do anything as an individual by your name. Do it as a multi-billion dollar company with a battalion of lawyers and have fall guys. At minimum have an LLC controlled by a trust in someone else’s name doing anything actionable in court.

    Companies are people even though they can’t get arrested and giving large sums of money to politicians is free speech, not bribery or corruption.

    • UsoSaito@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      24 hours ago

      And do it in a large enough quantity that it makes financially insensitive to do it at a large scale vs small

      • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        24 hours ago

        In short just add lots of people and many steps in the way. Killing someone is bad, releasing a product / service you know will kill lots of people is just a rounding error in business.

        • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          one only has to look at the health insurance industry to see how deadly that is both for claimants and ceo’s alike.

  • helvetpuli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    So scraping means any harvesting of data now?

    We need a new name for the fairly painful process of trying to tease meaning out of people’s unstructured HTML.

    In any case downloading a bunch of stuff from JSTOR was not scraping. And he absolutely had authorised access to that data. They took exception to the quantity, mainly.

    • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Scraping has multiple meanings.

      Web scraping is a specific type of scraping, but data via APIs or even torrents could be considered a scrape, even if that data is nicely structured.

      The commonality between them is they all have the implication that:

      • the data harvesting is automated
      • the data you harvest is not owned by you, and you don’t have explicit permission to use it
      • the scope of what you harvest is broad and not targeted at retrieving specific limited pieces of data

      Any access patterns that broadly correspond to this could be considered scraping.

      • helvetpuli@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Sure. Fine. It means all of that now.

        But what are we going to call the difficult thing that we have to do to coax, say, unstructured event listings into reasonably structured data?

        • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          If you want to refer specifically to web scraping then call it “web scraping” or “site scraping” or “HTML scraping”

          Not difficult to get your meaning across.

    • Nugscree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Also that he was planning, or already was, sharing the data for free. They made an example out of him because he believed such data should be for everybody.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because Swartz was merely a natural person, while Meta is an almighty corporation. Everybody knows only corporations deserve rights, duh!

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 day ago

      Because Swartz wanted a free and open web and the powers that be wanted control over every major social media website. This was around the same that moot showed up in Epstein’s emails and would later sell his site. All in the run up to the 2016 election. Now think about how /r/thedonald stayed on the site for so long.

      • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        r/donald was a py-op posing as social media. I doubt it did much other than get liberals mad on reddit but it was clearly a sign of things to come.

        Fox is the true evil.

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Lol, doesn’t matter if you have expensive lawyers. What matters is that you have counsel that goes to church with the judge or plays golf at the country club with them, or knows people that do. Or you’re a Zionists genocide supporter and pedophile like Alan Dershowitz.

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fuck Congress and the DoJ as well. How the fuck can Reddit still have Section 230 protections after what spez did?

      • Unsealed9041@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        Democracy was always a mirage, it was only for rich white guys in the beginning, not the enslaved Africans and genocided natives. We’ve found ways around giving liberty to at least some portion of people continuously since.

      • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        More like we’ve known, but it’s been more tolerable until recently. We got frog boiled, and are just realizing we’re cooked.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The anti-piracy efforts of the RIAA and MPAA (and the publishing houses and…) are still pretty robust, but that didn’t stop any of the big AI companies from using gigatons of copyrighted material as datasets to train their LLMs. It’s why when you ask them to generate an image featuring Winnie The Pooh, they all know what you’re talking about.

    But the big companies absolutely did not get permission to do this. Nor did anyone give permission to allow for the recent jailbreaks by AI task systems to hack into other companies. If that were any singular human (not of the owner class) they’d face charges under the CFAA. But since it’s a massive company with an army of blue-haired lawyers, nothing was done about it, and the companies actually bragged about their AIs escaping containment.

    Extinction by AI takeover is far more interesting than extinction by global drought.

    • Regna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      He (who founded and stood behind the original concept of Reddit) was so forcefully charged that he decided to commit suicide because he believed that information deserves to be free.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Aaron is definately on my wall of heroes. I think much of our leadership does not understand how despite there being billions of people on the planet they are not just fungible commodities. That we lose every time and stunt our growth. I by no means mean we should have more populationa as what we have is to much for the biosphere. Its about smartly using what we have than thinking you can just replace a person with another.

  • Chris Lowles@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    About a year ago I saw coverage on IA getting reamed for the cases they were dealing with, there were many takes during then and it turned out the way it did (and continues to) but my take on it basically extends from what the govt did to Swartz, in that IA had to deal with all of that almost entirely on their own and take on the mental turmoil, meanwhile Meta et al not only got away and continues to get away with it but in fact are now partnering up with other mega corps doing the same shit, for profit. It dead set almost feels like they’re mocking us by going this far with these ventures, they’re like “Yeah the govt moralized and killed someone for the same shit we’re getting govt contracts for and ADVERTISING ON OUR OWN PLATFORMS, gonna do something about it? Mad?”.

    All of this amounts to the most open and shut case of “if you have enough money, you can get away with anything, objectively anything”