Hey Beeple and visitors to Beehaw: I think we need to have a discussion about !technology@beehaw.org, community culture, and moderation. First, some of the reasons that I think we need to have this conversation.

1. Technology got big fast and has stayed Beehaw's most active community.
2. Technology gets more reports (about double in the last month by a rough hand count) than the next highest community that I moderate (Politics, and this is during election season in a month that involved a disastrous debate, an assassination attempt on a candidate, and a major party's presumptive nominee dropping out of the race)
3. For a long time, I and other mods have felt that Technology at times isn’t living up to the Beehaw ethos. More often than I like I see comments in this community where users are being abusive or insulting toward one another, often without any provocation other than the perception that the other user’s opinion is wrong.

Because of these reasons, we have decided that we may need to be a little more hands-on with our moderation of Technology. Here’s what that might mean:

1. Mods will be more actively removing comments that are unkind or abusive, that involve personal attacks, or that just have really bad vibes. a. We will always try to be fair, but you may not always agree with our moderation decisions. Please try to respect those decisions anyway. We will generally try to moderate in a way that is a) proportional, and b) gradual. b. We are more likely to respond to particularly bad behavior from off-instance users with pre-emptive bans. This is not because off-instance users are worse, or less valuable, but simply that we aren't able to vet users from other instances and don't interact with them with the same frequency, and other instances may have less strict sign-up policies than Beehaw, making it more difficult to play whack-a-mole.
2. We will need you to report early and often. The drawbacks of getting reports for something that doesn't require our intervention are outweighed by the benefits of us being able to get to a situation before it spirals out of control. By all means, if you’re not sure if something has risen to the level of violating our rule, say so in the report reason, but I'd personally rather get reports early than late, when a thread has spiraled into an all out flamewar. a. That said, please don't report people for being wrong, unless they are doing so in a way that is actually dangerous to others. It would be better for you to kindly disagree with them in a nice comment. b. Please, feel free to try and de-escalate arguments and remind one another of the humanity of the people behind the usernames. Remember to Be(e) Nice even when disagreeing with one another. Yes, even Windows users.
3. We will try to be more proactive in stepping in when arguments are happening and trying to remind folks to Be(e) Nice. a. This isn't always possible. Mods are all volunteers with jobs and lives, and things often get out of hand before we are aware of the problem due to the size of the community and mod team. b. This isn't always helpful, but we try to make these kinds of gentle reminders our first resort when we get to things early enough. It’s also usually useful in gauging whether someone is a good fit for Beehaw. If someone responds with abuse to a gentle nudge about their behavior, it’s generally a good indication that they either aren’t aware of or don’t care about the type of community we are trying to maintain.

I know our philosophy posts can be long and sometimes a little meandering (personally that's why I love them) but do take the time to read them if you haven't. If you can't/won't or just need a reminder, though, I'll try to distill the parts that I think are most salient to this particular post:

1. Be(e) nice. By nice, we don't mean merely being polite, or in the surface-level "oh bless your heart" kind of way; we mean be kind.
2. Remember the human. The users that you interact with on Beehaw (and most likely other parts of the internet) are people, and people should be treated kindly and in good-faith whenever possible.
3. Assume good faith. Whenever possible, and until demonstrated otherwise, assume that users don't have a secret, evil agenda. If you think they might be saying or implying something you think is bad, ask them to clarify (kindly) and give them a chance to explain. Most likely, they've communicated themselves poorly, or you've misunderstood. After all of that, it's possible that you may disagree with them still, but we can disagree about Technology and still give one another the respect due to other humans.

archive link

> “I recommend being in the office at least every weekday,” he wrote in a memo posted internally on Wednesday evening that was viewed by The New York Times. He added that “60 hours a week is the sweet spot of productivity” in the message to employees who work on Gemini, Google’s lineup of A.I. models and apps. > > ... > > “A number of folks work less than 60 hours and a small number put in the bare minimum to get by,” he wrote. “This last group is not only unproductive but also can be highly demoralizing to everyone else.”

Sergey Brin, who is worth $145 billion, thinks workers should come to the office on weekends, and work 60 hours a week as a "sweet spot".

“It’s incomprehensible to give a speech about threats in cyberspace and not mention Russia and it’s delusional to think this will turn Russia and the FSB [the Russian security agency] into our friends,” said James Lewis, a veteran cyber expert formerly of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. “They hate the US and are still mad about losing the cold war. Pretending otherwise won’t change this.”

Guardian link in case folks don't want to provide a burner email.

I've never used Instagram, so I was spared, but this sounds like hell.

A more detailed article on this issue can be found here.

Basically, the "Basic" app functions of this thermostat control were free until, a short while ago, users were greeted by a notification, telling them they would need to pay a 1€/month subscription from now on. Only once you had already entered your payment details and clicked through the payment process, would you be told "lol jk, it was just a social experiment".

As a German who was taught all the dark times of our nation in school, I can confidently say that us causing the second War To End All Wars is almost as bad as this company's behaviour.

Obvious hyperbole aside, this is despicable and practices like these must be stomped into extinction like a carelessly tossed cigarette, lest other companies pick up on it and make the world a worse place for everyone but themselves.

Recent content policy announcements by Meta pose a grave threat to vulnerable communities globally and drastically increase the risk that the company will yet again contribute to mass violence and gross human rights abuses – just like it did in Myanmar in 2017. The company’s significant contribution to the atrocities suffered by the Rohingya people is the subject of a new whistleblower complaint that has just been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

On January 7, founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a raft of changes to Meta’s content policies, seemingly aimed at currying favor with the new Trump administration. These include the lifting of prohibitions on previously banned speech, such as the denigration and harassment of racialized minorities. Zuckerberg also announced a drastic shift in content moderation practices – with automated content moderation being significantly rolled back. While these changes have been initially implemented in the US, Meta has signaled that they may be rolled out internationally. This shift marks a clear retreat from the company’s previously stated commitments to responsible content governance.

> Yet my — and I'd imagine your — frustration isn't borne of a hatred of technology, or a dislike of the internet, or a lack of appreciation of what it can do, but the sense that all of this was once better, and that these companies have turned impeding our use of the computer into an incredibly profitable business. > > So much of the pushback I get in my work — and the pushback I've seen toward others — is that I "hate" technology, when I'd like argue that my profound disgust is borne of a great love of technology, and a deep awareness of the positive effects it's had on my life. I do not turn on my computer every day wanting to be annoyed, and I don't imagine any of you do either. We're not logging onto whatever social networks we're on because we are ready to be pissed off. If anything, we'd love to be delighted by the people we chose to connect with and the content we consume, and want to simply go about our business without a litany of microaggressions created by growth-desperation and a lack of responsibility toward the user. > > Technology has, in many ways, stopped being about "using technology to help people do things," or at the very least "help the user do something that they want to do." Software has, as Marc Andreessen said it would in 2011, eaten the world, and has done so in the nakedly-cynical and usurious way that he wanted it to, prioritizing the invasion of our lives through prioritizing growth — and the collection of as much data as possible on the user — over any particular utility or purpose. Andreessen and his ilk saw (and see) software not as a thing that provides value, but as a means for the tech industry to penetrate and "disrupt" as many industries as possible, pushing legacy providers to "transform themselves into software companies" rather than using software to make their products better, describing Pixar — the studio that made movies like Toy Story and Inside Out that was acquired by Disney in 2006 — as a software company rather than a company that makes something using software. > > I realize this sounds like semantics, but let me put it another way: software has, for the tech industry, become far more about extracting economic value than it has in providing it. When the tech industry becomes focused on penetrating markets (to quote Andreessen, "software companies...[taking] over large swathes of the economy") there's little consideration of whether said software is prioritizing the solution to a problem.

---

> The problem is that we, as a society, still act like technology is some distinct thing separate from our real lives, and that in turn “technology” is some sort of hobbyist pursuit. Mainstream media outlets have a technology section, with technology reporters that are hired to cover “the technology industry,” optimizing not for any understanding or experience in using technology, but 30,000 foot view of “what the computer people are doing.” > > This may have made more sense 20 years ago — though I’d add that back in 2008 you had multiple national newspapers with technology columnists, and computers were already an integral part of our working and personal lives — but in the year 2025 is a fundamental failure of modern media. Every single person you meet in every single part of your life likely interfaces with technology as much as if not more than they do with other people in the real world, and the technology coverage they read in their newspaper or online doesn’t represent that. It’s why a relatively modest software update for Android or Windows earns vastly more column inches than the fact that Google, a product that we all use, doesn’t really work anymore. > > As a result, it’s worth considering that billions of people actually really like what technology does for them, and in turn are extremely frustrated with what technology does to them. > > The problem is that modern tech media has become oriented around companies and trends rather than the actual experience of a person living in reality. Generative AI would never have been any kind of “movement” or “industry” if the media had approached it from the perspective of a consumer and said “okay, sure, but what does this actually do?” and the same goes for both the metaverse and cryptocurrency.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25156749

> I woke up this morning to find a new little friend on my phone! Android Safety Core. > > So what is this great new application that was non-consentually installed on my device with no indicator that it ever was except an alert from Tracker Control. > > ! > > There isn't a of information on it, but essentially its an app that "protects" you from obscene images on your phone. > > "One of the new features the company announced is called Sensitive Content Warnings. This is designed to give you more control over seeing and sending nude images. When enabled, it blurs images that might contain nudity before you view them and then prompts you with what Google calls a “speed bump” containing “help-finding resources and options, including to view the content.” The feature also kicks in and shows a so-called “speed bump” when you try to send or forward an image that might contain nudity." - Android Authority > > As for the Google play description, it's very detailed about what your new friend entails. > > ! > > Very descriptive. > > So essentially it blurs any images of nudity that is sent to you or that is seen. > > Obviously the app has to see all the images that are sent to you in order to do this. I'm sure this won't be abused! > > The Google reviews on this one sure aren't happy. > > You may want to remove this. It can be uninstalled. However to find it on the store you need to look up the link in your browser. I also provided it here. > > Dont we all love google and what it does behind our backs for us? > > > > TL;DR > > Google recently non-consentually installed a new "safety" feature on our devices that blur any nude images that are sent to you or seen on your phone. They didn't include any sort of update alert or anything and simply slipped it onto devices quietly. Here's a link to the app where you can uninstall if you wish. Of course in order for an app to do this, it needs to see every photo that is ever sent to you. A clear privacy invasion if I say so myself.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/21327394

> !technology@lemmy.world removed my post, without any sort of notification, which is lame and annoying. > > Here is the original text, copied verbatim: > > Something is going on with Samsung TV's voice assistant > > My TV has suddenly started to interpret voice commands as if I was speaking Russian. Users on Samsungs community forum are reporting the same issue. There are users on Reddit who are also reporting the same issue. > > A quick google search shows that this is worldwide, and that it started somewhere between 3-5 days ago. > > What the hell is going on, Samsung? > > (I am not seeking tech support or advice, just raising awareness to what is hopefully a benign problem.)

The original post is from r/Romania, but I thought it would be interesting to share this here too.

!

Archived

Facebook is banning posts that mention various Linux-related topics, sites, or groups. Some users may also see their accounts locked or limited when posting Linux topics. Major open-source operating system news, reviews, and discussion site DistroWatch is at the center of the controversy, as it seems to be the first to have noticed that Facebook's Community Standards had blackballed it.

[...]

DistroWatch says that the Facebook ban took effect on January 19. Readers have reported difficulty posting links to the site on this social media platform. Moreover, some have told DistroWatch that their Facebook accounts have been locked or limited after sharing posts mentioning Linux topics.

If you're wondering if there might be something specific to DistroWatch.com, something on the site that the owners/operators perhaps don't even know about, for example, then it seems pretty safe to rule out such a possibility. Reports show that "multiple groups associated with Linux and Linux discussions have either been shut down or had many of their posts removed." However, we tested a few other Facebook posts with mentions of Linux, and they didn't get blocked immediately.

[...]

Addition to include the DistroWatch link: https://distrowatch.com/weekly-mobile.php?issue=20250127#sitenews

Archived

China’s auto industry has been a success story in recent years, with car exports emerging as a bright spot in an otherwise slowing economy. Between 2021 and 2024, the number of cars shipped from China surged by 300%, propelling China past Japan to become the world’s largest car exporter by units. However, this rapid growth now faces significant challenges. Trade barriers and outright bans in major markets like the US threaten to stall export momentum. Slumping export growth will put pressure on Chinese automakers, potentially leading to industry consolidation. But incumbent carmakers shouldn’t celebrate too much—even with slower export growth, Chinese carmakers are transforming into formidable global competitors in the auto market.

[...]

Six factors contribute to the apparent slowdown or early peak in export growth:

Rising trade barriers: Both advanced and emerging economies are erecting a growing number of trade barriers against Chinese passenger vehicle exports (Figure 2). This underscores that the principal constraint on China’s vehicle exports is demand-related rather than supply-side.

[...]

Inventory pressure: Our analysis of Marklines and Chinese customs data reveals that Chinese OEMs’ overseas sales have severely fallen behind exports since mid-2022. Chinese OEMs now hold nearly a year’s worth of unsold inventory abroad, much more than the two months of average retail sales inventories in China or the US (Figure 3). As firms frontload exports ahead of tariff hikes (or recycling fees in Russia) and adopt premium pricing strategies, inventory levels have surged since late 2023, especially in regions raising trade barriers. In the EU, they have reached a record 28 months,1 driven by weak electric vehicle (EV) demand and high Chinese EV prices (compared to China’s domestic prices). In Brazil, EV inventories hit 22 months after exporters frontloaded exports ahead of tariff increases, while inventories of Chinese exporters in Russia reached 16 months.

[...]

Competition from Chinese overseas plants: While Chinese OEMs (with the exception of Geely’s acquisitions of Volvo and Proton) have traditionally concentrated production in China, this is changing rapidly. By 2027, we expect Chinese OEMs to increase their overseas production capacity by 1.5 to 2 million vehicles. A major driver of this growth is BYD, which has announced seven new overseas plants in recent months. These plants, some built due to growing trade barriers, will increasingly compete with Chinese exports. This is already evident in Thailand, where Chinese exports declined as Chinese OEMs’ local production ramps up.

[...]

Joint venture (JV) constraints: Many producers suffering the most overcapacity are mass volume JV brands between Chinese and Western automakers. Our own calculations2 indicate that their CUR is far from healthy at only 36%. Foreign luxury brands, large private Chinese OEMs, EV startups, and even SOEs fared much better with CURs of 90%, 72%, 66%, and 64%, respectively. JV companies may hesitate to aggressively pursue third-market opportunities by exporting from China because they would directly compete with their own operations in ASEAN, Latin America, and Europe. They would also have to share profits from those efforts with their Chinese JV partners.

[...]

Saturation of Russia’s market: China-based exporters have capitalized on low-hanging fruit in markets with high demand but limited supply, such as Russia, which has accounted for nearly 20% of China’s total car exports in 2024. Western OEMs exiting Russia in the wake of the Ukraine conflict and associated sanctions created a temporary vacuum that Chinese automakers filled. However, market opportunities in Russia are finite and cannot provide endless growth going forward. Carmakers expect sales in Russia to drop in 2025 due to extremely high interest rates.

[...]

Slowing EV adoption: Outside of China, the growth of EV sales—both battery EVs (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs)—has slowed to 8% year-on-year through September 2024, down from 44% in 2023 and 23% in 2022. This is problematic for Chinese OEMs that have been more successful in capturing EV than ICE market shares globally. Chinese OEMs ex-China EV market share rose from 13% in 2023 to 17% in 2024, while their ICE vehicle market share has remained nearly flat at 4.7%. In this context, PHEV sales could offer some relief. These have fared slightly better than BEV sales in several overseas markets in recent months and are also less dependent on charging infrastructure, often a key obstacle to BEV adoption.

Archived

China’s DeepSeek AI model represents a transformative development in China’s AI capabilities, and its implications for cyberattacks and data privacy are particularly alarming. By leveraging DeepSeek, China is on its way to revolutionizing its cyber-espionage, cyberwarfare, and information operations.

[...]

DeepSeek’s advanced AI architecture, built on access to vast datasets and cutting-edge processing capabilities, is particularly suited for offensive cybersecurity operations and large-scale exploitation of sensitive information. It is designed to operate in complex and dynamic environments, potentially making it superior in applications like military simulations, geopolitical analysis, and real-time decision-making.

DeepSeek was founded by Liang Wenfeng, co-founder of High-Flyer, a quantitative hedge fund [...] Wenfeng developed DeepSeek cheaper and faster than U.S. companies by exploiting China’s vast datasets [...]

[...]

Wenfeng’s close ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) raises the specter of having had access to the fruits of CCP espionage, [...] Over the past decade, Chinese state-sponsored actors and affiliated individuals have come under heightened scrutiny for targeting U.S. AI startups, academic labs, and technology giants in attempts to acquire algorithms, source code, and proprietary data that power machine learning systems.

[...]

Within the U.S., several high-profile criminal cases have placed a spotlight on the theft of AI-related trade secrets. Although many investigations involve corporate espionage more generally, AI has become a particularly attractive prize due to its utility in strategic industries such as autonomous vehicles, facial recognition, cybersecurity, and advanced robotics.

One well-known incident involved alleged theft of autonomous vehicle technology at Apple’s secretive self-driving car project, where a Chinese-born engineer was accused of downloading large volumes of proprietary data shortly before planning to relocate to a Chinese competitor. In another case, a separate Apple employee was charged with attempting to smuggle similar self-driving car information out of the country. Both cases underscored the vulnerability of AI research to insider threats, as employees with privileged access to code or algorithms can quickly copy crucial files.

[...]

DeepSeek also poses a unique threat in the realm of advanced persistent threats (APTs) – long-term cyber-espionage campaigns often attributed to state actors. The model could be used to sift through massive volumes of encrypted or obfuscated data, correlating seemingly unrelated pieces of information to uncover sensitive intelligence. This might include classified government communications, corporate trade secrets, or personal data of high-ranking officials. DeepSeek’s ability to detect hidden patterns could supercharge such campaigns, enabling more precise targeting and greater success in exfiltrating valuable information.

DeepSeek’s generative capabilities add another layer of danger, particularly in the realm of social engineering and misinformation. For example, it could create hyper-realistic phishing emails or messages, tailored to individuals using insights derived from breached datasets. These communications could bypass traditional detection systems and manipulate individuals into revealing sensitive information, such as passwords or financial data. This is especially relevant given the growing use of AI in creating synthetic identities and deepfakes, which could further deceive targets into trusting malicious communications.

[...]

China’s already substantial surveillance infrastructure and relaxed data privacy laws give it a significant advantage in training AI models like DeepSeek. This includes access to domestic data sources as well as data acquired through cyber-espionage and partnerships with other nations.

[...]

DeepSeek has the potential to reshape the cyber-threat landscape in ways that disproportionately harm the U.S. and the West. Its ability to identify vulnerabilities, enhance social engineering, and exploit vast quantities of sensitive data represents a critical challenge to cybersecurity and privacy.

If left unchecked, DeepSeek could not only elevate China’s cyber capabilities but also redefine global norms around data privacy and security, with long-term consequences for democratic institutions and personal freedoms.

[...]

Archived

Although Beijing appeared to score a propaganda coup last week when hundreds of thousands of American TikTok users flooded to the social media app RedNote, observers say the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is worried about any cross-cultural exchanges happening online.

The Chinese government blocks various U.S.-based platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and X, which are only accessible via virtual personal network. The government also heavily censors topics considered sensitive to policymakers.

[...]

Dali Yang, William Claude Reavis political science professor at the University of Chicago, wrote on [social media]:

>"Apparently Xiaohongshu is frantically trying to adapt to both accommodate these new American users but also reduce their interactions with Chinese domestic users. Haha, that sounds like going in the direction of what Bytedance did with Douyin/Tiktok."

Rush Doshi, senior fellow for China and director of the Initiative on China Strategy at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote [on social media]:

>"The PRC end game will be to bifurcate the app, as they did with Douyin, between a foreign and domestic version to avoid too much interaction between US and PRC users.

[...]

After indicating he would rescue TikTok, Trump on Monday signed an executive order postponing the TikTok ban for 75 days.

He has suggested, however, that the U.S. should acquire a 50 percent ownership in the company, telling reporters it is "worthless" if he doesn't approve a deal to keep it going in the country.

Evan Feigenbaum, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told CNBC such a joint venture is unlikely, given that China regulates the algorithms as national security property and that China is "basically being asked to force over its core intellectual property."

----

In a related article, The Diplomat reports that unlike TikTok, RedNote primarily operates in China. As a result, concerns over content censorship, data privacy, and CCP control are even greater.

>RedNote imposes strict content censorship on the posts visible on the platform. Discussions on politics are generally limited and hidden. Similar to the situations in other Chinese-controlled websites and mobile applications, users need to use jargon, memes, acronyms, and intentionally mistyped words or characters to express limited opinions on public affairs in China. The platform [RedNote] has a notorious record of limiting LGBTQ-related topics. Media reports suggest that some U.S. users have already seen their posts taken down by RedNote as they are deemed “too sensitive.”

>The significant number of U.S. users entering the app led to some unplanned pressure for RedNote to fulfill its censorship requirements imposed by the Chinese cyberspace administration officials. After the first wave of user influx, RedNote was reported to be urgently hiring English-language content moderation employees. The job posting has no prior job experience requirements for the new hires and offers the recruits paid training. Reports also suggest that RedNote is developing features that segregate users based on their IP address to minimize its political and content moderation risks.

[...]

Archived

[...]

The Chinese government is revolutionizing digital surveillance at home and exporting these technologies abroad. [The study focuses on] Huawei, the world’s largest telecommunications provider, which is partly state-owned and increasingly regarded as an instrument of its foreign policy.

The transfers [of technology between China and foreign countries] have sparked widespread concern among observers. These tools of digital dictatorship, many argue, will let recipient governments expand surveillance and reinforce the wave of autocratic retrenchment and democratic erosion currently underway.

[...]

The [foreign] governments that receive Huawei transfers are systematically different than those that do not, and in ways that may be correlated with state repression.

[...]

The Chinese Communist Party's Surveillance State

The Information Age has revolutionized surveillance in the world’s autocracies. In 1998, the CCP launched the Golden Shield Project, which [one researcher] describes as “a domestic surveillance and filtering system that integrates online government databases with an all-encompassing surveillance network.”Footnote 3 In the first phase, completed in 2005, the CCP built a massive network of population databases, ID tracking systems, and internet surveillance tools, which let it record the movement of potential dissidents as revealed, in part, by their online behavior. In 2017, the CCP announced the completion of its “Sky Net” program, which entails 176 million surveillance cameras across China and plans for 626 million by 2020, nearly one camera for every two citizens (Hersey Reference Hersey2017; Russell Reference Russell2017). The result, Qiang (Reference Qiang2019) writes, is “the largest video-surveillance network in the world.”

Simultaneously, the CCP built a facial database that encompassed every adult citizen [...] and a DNA database [...]. The CCP’s facial recognition technology is employed for check-in and security at airports [...] train stations [...] and hotels [...].. In 2017, the CCP applied facial recognition technology to detect jaywalkers, with offenders notified via text message and their pictures displayed at major intersections [...]. This pervasive surveillance apparatus lets the CCP repress dissidents and spend less on public goods [...]. It also complements more analog forms of repression, such as informants and hired thugs [...]. Digital surveillance [in China] is now a conspicuous feature of everyday life.

[...] ** The CCP’s digital surveillance apparatus is supported by a network of domestic technology firms, which are subsidized by the state and routinely used as instruments of foreign policy**. The most general are Huawei and ZTE. Huawei is the world’s largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment [...], and especially dominant in Africa, where it has provided 70% of the 5G network.

[...]

China has a number of more focused technology firms that are implicated in surveillance. Several of these specialize in video cameras and facial recognition software: Hikvision, Dahua, CloudWalk, Megvii, YITU, and SenseTime, most notably. Of these, Hikvision is perhaps the most consequential. In 2019, it was responsible for nearly a quarter of the world’s surveillance cameras [...].Dahua has also supplied cameras for Safe City projects, so called for their use of digital surveillance to support the local security apparatus [...]. Other firms specialize in still different areas of surveillance. Meiya Pico reportedly built an app used by the Chinese government to extract data from citizens’ smartphones during street checks [...]. iFlytek develops voice recognition software [...].

[...]

Huawei transfers are [...] more likely if the recipient government has a preexisting relationship with Beijing. The effects of these transfers [...] depend on political institutions in recipient countries. In autocracies, where the chief political threat to incumbents is collective action by citizens and institutional oversight is weak, Huawei transfers lead to an expansion of digital surveillance, internet shutdowns, internet filtering, and targeted arrests for online content. In democracies, where governments have stronger incentivizes to provide public goods, institutional oversight is stronger, and civil societies are more vibrant, Huawei transfers have no clear or consistent effect on digital repression.

[...]

Since Huawei is secretive about its contracts, our statistical estimates may be subject to measurement error. Huawei contracts, like other Chinese infrastructure contracts, routinely include confidentiality clauses [...], which prohibit recipient governments from divulging information about them. Consequently, our record of Huawei transfers may be incomplete, which would effectively include some treated countries in the control group. Since this would bias against our key results, our statistical estimates should be regarded as lower bounds, with the actual effect potentially larger. Third, Huawei’s secrecy means that we also lack fine-grained data about what its transfers entail.

[...]

Transfers that entail “Safe City” infrastructure, for instance, are almost certainly more likely to facilitate digital repression than contracts that focus on IT training for university students. Likewise, Huawei may be inclined to provide some recipient governments more direct personnel support than others, helping them overcome state capacity limitations that might otherwise prevent them from using technology transfers for digital repression.

[...]

ShrimpMoss (虾苔) is a dataset designed for the abliteration (https://github.com/FailSpy/abliterator) of Chinese government-imposed censorship and/or propaganda from large language models developed in the PRC. It consists of a series of files of prompts (in .txt, .json, and .parquet format) in two groupings:

• china_bad_*: Contains a series of prompts likely to trigger censorship or propaganda actions in the model.
• china_good_*: Contains a series of prompts in the same general category of topics but which are designed to not touch on things likely to be censored.

Prompts are in a mix of English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.

[...]

This dataset was produced on Mistral NeMo, an Apache-licensed model with no restrictions on how its outputs can be used. It is free for all uses and users without restriction. All liability is disclaimed.

Production of this dataset is estimated to have had a carbon footprint of under 25 grams.

[...]

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts: >A pseudonymous coder has created and released an open source “tar pit” to indefinitely trap AI training web crawlers in an infinitely, randomly-generating series of pages to waste their time and computing power. The program, called Nepenthes after the genus of carnivorous pitcher plants which trap and consume their prey, can be deployed by webpage owners to protect their own content from being scraped or can be deployed “offensively” as a honeypot trap to waste AI companies’ resources.

>The typical web crawler doesn't appear to have a lot of logic. It downloads a URL, and if it sees links to other URLs, it downloads those too. Nepenthes generates random links that always point back to itself - the crawler downloads those new links. Nepenthes happily just returns more and more lists of links pointing back to itself,” Aaron B, the creator of Nepenthes, told 404 Media.

>Since they made and deployed a proof-of-concept, Aaron B said their pages have been hit millions of times by internet-scraping bots. On a Hacker News thread, someone claiming to be an AI company CEO said a tarpit like this is easy to avoid; Aaron B told 404 Media “If that’s, true, I’ve several million lines of access log that says even Google Almighty didn’t graduate” to avoiding the trap.

TL;DW: At 4K, the RTX 5090 hits 20-50% uplifts in raster as compared to the RTX 4090, and 27-35% uplifts in RT as compared to the RTX 4090. Power efficiency is roughly equivalent to the 4090. The new dual flowthrough cooler design seems to perform exactly as advertised, providing remarkable cooling for a card that is only two slots thick.