This guy gets it.

For me it’s just generic influencer dislike. Wouldn’t go as far as hate though. It’s just that I pre-emptively don’t care about what they have to say. Clickbaity titles “this is why…” (without explaining why) certainly don’t help.

If you want to be pedantic about it - if the NSA, or any such agency demands to place a [backdoor of any sort] in an American company’s datacenter, they have to comply.

So, no, they (meta, Google, etc) won’t be handing over the data knowingly. But those devices placed there for sure aren’t running Minecraft servers.

We recognize that our business is critically dependent on sustaining the trust of customers, countries, and governments across Europe. We respect European values, comply with European laws, and actively defend Europe’s cybersecurity. Our support for Europe has always been – and always will be – steadfast.

None of that matters, since they still have to comply to American laws, which means they have to give access to European data if the US government requests it.

It’s kinda like good guy Hitler, because he killed Hitler.

Trump’s major achievement might be that the rest of the world starts relying less on the US.

In other words, clickbait?

So… How can you possibly justify that start button?

Yes it is. Although I personally have far less moral objections to it.

To elaborate:
OpenAI scraped data without permission, and then makes money from it.

Deepseek then used that data (even paid openai for it), trained a model on that data, and then releases that model for anyone to use.

While it’s still making use of “stolen data” (that’s a whole semantics discussion I won’t get into right now), I find it far more noble than the former.

Thank you for your insightful comment, it tells me a lot. Mostly about you, but still.

I only know the guy from the thumbnails and dead eyes. But this really feels like reaching for a justification to hate.

If you’ve seen (also past tense) any movie by, for example, Bryan Singer, you have consumed art made by a pedophile.

I’m not defending him (I honestly don’t care about him), all I’m saying is that without any context, these kind of statements are kinda cheap and meaningless.

I’d say that federation is the core principle of the network, so centralisation by piling all the users and content onto one server is very undesirable.
(also looking at you, lemmy.world)

uh huh-huh.

Because triggered and hate circlejerk.

Cue.

For those of us that are not familiar with all the (future) online laws worldwide, based on what clauses will they be shutting down?

I skimmed the article, but couldn’t find the specifics.

Meanwhile, in the real world, creators just want to setup an account and sell their content. Not having to deal with payment processors, setting up cdns port handling customer support themselves.

There’s enough to complain about how OnlyFans impacts society (like creating fake interactions with customers who think they’re interacting with the real deal). But them wanting a cut for doing all the technical middleman stuff is actually reasonable.

No need for these kind of inflammatory comments, the article itself is bad enough.

If you read the article, you would have seen that, yes, the perpetrator is serving a 20 year sentence.

About that 20% cut - I’m not going to argue about what amount would be fair, but for that money they do handle all the payment, distribution and infrastructure. In that sense it’s more comparable to Steam, Apple, Google etc.

But that’s getting pretty off-topic.

Interesting title.

What could OnlyFans have done to prevent this?

Meanwhile, nobody has attempted to give a definition. Lots of downvotes all around though. 🤷🏼‍♀️