You can find a lot of stuff over at hugging face - open source stuff as well. This for example for background removal.

This is presumably not a bad thing, as Google would most likely have benefited the most from this, especially as the so-called “privacy sandbox” that Google had planned as a replacement or server-side tracking are even more difficult to avoid. The “privacy sandbox” in particular would have been more of a competitive advantage for Google because, as the provider of Chrome, they are the only ones who have comprehensive access to aggregated user data that is collected directly via the browser.

There is no justification whatsoever for denying basic humanitarian aid to starving people in a war zone. That is just straight up evil.

Fun fact: Monopoly originated from “The Landlord’s Game” created in 1903 by Elizabeth Magie, an anti-monopolist who designed it to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land ownership.

This outcome was by no means surprising, especially as it was not Palestine’s first application for membership and the US has even vetoed resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Palestine on several occasions. The difference to your comparison, however, is that Israel itself, unlike China, has no right of veto in the UN Security Council.

Are you still convinced that you live in the “best democracy in the world”?

Tbh I think the world was already laughing in 2016. Even back then Trump was an absolutely ridiculous candidate. The real joke, though, is that even after his disastrous tenure as president and despite all of his criminal dealings, Trump is running again (and will probably even win the election). That would be funny if it were just about what this fact says about the American electorate. But unfortunately, the USA is still the strongest military power in the world. So it’s not too funny for the rest of the world to have to worry about how to deal with an orange psychopath with a gigantic arsenal of weapons and enormous economic power. I therefore assume that at least the democratic rest of the world has stopped laughing by now.

I don’t

deleted by creator

I assume that most of the former NPD members have found a new home with the AfD.

I hope so.

Seriously?!?

You are of course absolutely right that there has been remarkable technical progress. I also completely agree with you that there have been wonderful developments in terms of the accessibility of knowledge, for example. Nevertheless, I still don’t think that the internet has, on the whole, lived up to its full potential. What brings me to this assessment is that instead of having an equalizing effect, I think the Internet has created global monopolies that are now managed by just a few, all the more powerful companies (Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, etc.). I don’t mean that all companies are bad or that it’s not legitimate to make money on the Internet, but that a few companies have become so powerful that they basically no longer allow any competition in their industries. In my opinion, this is a consequence of capitalist market logic (an unregulated market will always produce monopolies) - and this logic is in turn reinforced by the network effects of the Internet (once a platform is the biggest, it will become bigger and bigger because it has the most utility). So I come to the conclusion that the internet has become more of a dystopia: I think it has even increased the centralization of economic power and thus inequality in our capitalist system. This is not to say that I don’t see the good sides. But I think that technological developments should not be viewed separately from the logic in which they are embedded. And this is where I see the problem: the Internet is no longer a free medium with equal opportunities for everyone who can make use of it, but an (easier-to-use) platform economy, at least in the parts that are used by the masses. I don’t have a godfather solution for this, just as I don’t have one for effective measures to combat climate change. However, I think that nothing can change significantly in either case as long as the logic of excessive profit maximization continues to dominate. Or to put it another way: I fear that all the efforts of committed individuals will not succeed if we simply carry on as before - if it were otherwise, the utopia of the early Internet would have been realized long ago. That is of course a pessimistic view, but unfortunately I think it is also a realistic one. Nevertheless, I don’t want to say that it’s not sensible and worthy of all honors if everyone tries to do their part. After all that’s why I’m here on Lemmy and not on Reddit.

Sorry, it was really just a shower thought. I was thinking of two things: 1. the hopes that were placed in the Internet have, in my opinion, not materialized at all. Of course, there are many positive effects, but on the whole, the Internet has by no means lived up to its potential. 2. we are now faced with a situation where large corporations control most of the internet used by the general public. This brings with it responsibilities that I don’t believe these corporations are living up to in any way. Hence the analogy with climate change: a change for the better would probably be possible, but there can be no solution as long as those who are largely responsible do not accept their responsibility. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this will never happen.

Major parts of today’s internet are controlled by extremely powerful corporations - that’s just a fact. Private individuals and even committed activists have very little to no influence on how these corporations shape their part of the internet. Hence the analogy with climate change: this problem, which threatens the whole of humanity, could probably also be solved, or at least be tackled in a meaningful way. However, a solution is only possible if those corporations that are largely responsible live up to their responsibilities. Of course, this is not to say that private individuals should give up all hope and not try everything they can. Look at it this way: every post or comment on Lemmy is the equivalent of a properly disposed plastic bottle - just a drop in the ocean, but a drop nonetheless. What I was getting at overall is that you can certainly make a contribution, but this small contribution will be of little use as long as those who are actually responsible do not live up to their responsibility, because only these players could turn the tide for the better; but unfortunately they don’t; quite the opposite, I think. Nevertheless, every contribution to improving the situation is important. So please don’t let my pessimism get you down.

That would be great. Perhaps there is a lack of funding to make this possible. Or the EFF, as an NGO, simply does not want to become a provider itself in order to ensure that it remains neutral.

Exactly.

For example, efforts in the areas of data protection, freedom of information, combating misinformation, improving working conditions in the online sector, creating fair digital remuneration models and so on and so forth. Pretty much things that the Electronic Frontier Foundation, NOYB and many other such organizations are committed to.

As far a I know the porn industry has actualy driven innovation in various web-technologies including streaming, e-commerce, VR…and now probably AI, I guess.

I essentially agree. I just come to a different, admittedly pessimistic conclusion. I simply don’t believe that things will change for the better on their own. In my opinion, this requires regulation that is actually enforced so that the powerful of this world cannot do as they please. The GDPR is of course a step in the right direction. In practice, however, it is unfortunately nowhere near as effective as it could and should be.