They’re trying to make some type of argument that a private studio should have exclusive rights to a specific style of art and that by openai allowing users to generate art in that style, we are slipping into anti-democratic authoritarianism.

My opinion is that you can’t own “styles” of art and that there’s nothing wrong here. Legally speaking I can copy any art style I want.

What was fascinating, or perhaps horrific is a better word, about the article that I didn’t know about is the brief mention of “The Canary Mission”

Here’s from their about page:

Canary Mission documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond. Canary Mission investigates hatred across the entire political spectrum, including the far right, far left and anti-Israel activists.

Canary Mission is motivated by a desire to combat the rise in anti-Semitism on college campuses. We pursue our mission by presenting the words and deeds of individuals and organizations that engage in anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry on the far right, far left and among the array of organizations that comprise the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Essentially they gather dossiers on private individuals that they claim are anti-semitic. So, I looked up the woman that was taken off the street like a Ukrainian draft-dodger.

https://canarymission.org/individual/Rumeysa_Ozturk

Rumeysa Ozturk engaged in anti-Israel activism in March 2024, in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israelis on October 7, 2023.

Ozturk is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.

What was the anti-Israel activism, you ask? I figured it was some sort of protest. Sort of like the one in New York where they occupied a building.

Nope

On March 26, 2024, Ozturk co-authored an op-ed published in the Tufts Daily newspaper titled: “Try again, President Kumar: Renewing calls for Tufts to adopt March 4 TCU Senate resolutions.” The authors urged “President Kumar and the Tufts administration to meaningfully engage with and actualize the resolutions passed by the Senate.”

The op-ed referred to the passing of anti-Israel resolutions by the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate, which demanded the University “…acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments, and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.”

At Tufts university, the Community Union Senate (not really sure what this is. a student council or something) passed a 3/5ths majority resolution urging the president of the university to

1. acknowledge the Palestinian genocide

2. apologize for some statements, I don’t know what

3. disclose its investments

4. divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel

She co-wrote an op-ed essentially demanding the president follow the resolution that was passed. That’s the “anti-Israel activism” she’s guilty of. I suppose that’s enough to be deported. Be careful out there guys. If you aren’t a citizen, shut up about your political views until you are. Because there are eyes out there watching everything you do. Even if you are… consider what you are doing. You may be making an enemy of a vindictive state that is willing to break the rules.

Here’s the op-ed, in case you’re interested: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj

These resolutions were the product of meaningful debate by the Senate and represent a sincere effort to hold Israel accountable for clear violations of international law. Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.

Lock 'em up, I guess. If you believe that Palestinian civilians have a right to life then you are a terrorist-sympathizer in this administration’s opinion.

i see your point too, but i also think you’re mistaken.

engaging is any time of interaction whatsoever. i could go to a ragebait and go into the comments and calmly and politely explain xyz. But

a) in social media sites where algorithms are used the post I’m commenting on will be more likely to show up on other people’s screens. because social media sites want engagement- doesn’t have to be positive and

b) even in social media sites where there is no algorithm (like the one we’re speaking on) people are more likely to click on a comment section the larger the number of comments are. no point in clicking on the comment section if there’s 0 or 1 comments. every comment is an indirect increase to the visibility and probability of engagement with future users

while I do agree with you that there are different levels of engagement- either way you are engaging.

it probably does indirectly. users are probably more likely to go into the comment section if they see a larger number of comments. no reason to go there if it’s empty

engaging with something is perpetuating it. that’s how rage-bait works. the more people comment the more it spreads. content doesn’t have to be good, it just needs people to engage with it

look at the chaos that Y2K was. one doesn’t simply adopt a new calendar.

it’s too ingrained. it’s like ripping out the foundations of a house to build a new one. it would have to be one hell of a calendar