Oh really? I can almost always tell because it’s obvious in breath, depth and consideration shown in of the replies.
The “issue” that some people pretend to have is that they don’t think ads should be shown near content they deem hateful.
I sincerely can’t believe that someone who claims to be on par with a doctor doesn’t even entertain the possibility that the content of an ad could be problematic on a sociological level. And that’s on top of misconstruing the point I was making.
The “issue” that some people pretend to have is that they don’t think ads should be shown near content they deem hateful
You mean the advertisers of big corporations who care about their brand image don’t like that, right doctor?
Anyway, some language models run on the CPU (the one I used did anyway), and many can run decently with modern hardware. The game Suck Up! is the perfect example save for the part where the developers chose to run it server-side on release, though, probably to protect their IP.
I love how you reply by pretending that everything I’ve said up to this point hasn’t been said in this thread.
But I love more how you pretend that the contents of the ads being served to millions of users shouldn’t be reviewed for hate speech because the company is turning a profit and that makes it all ok.
Tell me, how old are you and what is your highest level of education? You sound sus as hell with these myopic replies. You really sound like you haven’t experienced life.
That’s just the tip! They also go sucky sucky under bathroom stalls, keep tabs on their male family members’ porn habits, get caught escaping a 20-man orgy through a small widow, and shower male escorts with expensive gifts.
I know, strange times we live in where “liberal” words are treated as if they were so dangerous that they need a consent screen. I don’t see that happening to hate speech and you’re here defending this.
I know it doesn’t register in your mind the implications but I don’t expect you to.
How do you know this? If you can’t see it or read it, how do you know this?
Because it’s been reported by the news that I cited.
That isn’t censorship.
It’s the literal definition. Just because it’s thinly veiled as a moderation measure by a billionaire doesn’t mean that the core concept doesn’t apply. Like I said, don’t confuse it either way.
You don’t get posts removed for saying it. You don’t get banned.
And like I said, censorship is not only when your content gets removed or you get banned. You can have a similar effect with different mechanisms that effectively render content invisible, and I find it disingenuous of you not to consider that.
“Cisgender” has no need to even exist as a word.
You don’t need a word to mean “not trans”,
Brother, we have created entire fictional languages for less, and have names for concepts you can’t even conceive of. Your argument is fragile. And your monolignualism is showing with those nearsighted takes.
“Cisgender” is really only ever used as an insult,
Cisgender has been thrown at Musk and his supporters because they treat it as an insult. Don’t even. lol
Limiting the reach of posts deemed “hateful”, while not removing them or banning the person posting them, is not censorship.
It’s most definitely a form of censorship, and I will die on this hill tonight.
Oh really? I can almost always tell because it’s obvious in breath, depth and consideration shown in of the replies.
I sincerely can’t believe that someone who claims to be on par with a doctor doesn’t even entertain the possibility that the content of an ad could be problematic on a sociological level. And that’s on top of misconstruing the point I was making.
You mean the advertisers of big corporations who care about their brand image don’t like that, right doctor?