Yeah. I looked it up. That’s why I made the post with the credible numbers. The point about the crime rate is one of the criticisms of that Yale study, which I thought was neat.

I can see what she’s doing, but I don’t know off the top of my head if there is anyone actually claiming that figure.

Most estimates of “illegal aliens”, including by the Department of Homeland Security, are around ~11 million; a figure that has been stable since noughties. https://www.statista.com/statistics/646261/unauthorized-immigrant-population-in-the-us/

Based on that figure, undocumented immigrants have a much lower crime rate than average. If the figure was as high as she claims, they would have to be absolute saints.

Lemmy has various options to sort, eg by active. That surfaces posts that create engagement. It’s stuff that polarizes.

I find interesting stuff either by sorting by new in my subscribed communities. Or by looking for something that causes a stir. The last one creates exactly those problems that are often ascribed to “The Algorithm”.

Fair. It’s certainly an issue that someone like Musk could weaponize Twitter.

Being active on Lemmy, not this one incidence in particular. This is one example showing that the spread of misinformation does not require any sinister force pulling strings.

I have an interest in internet regulation and so read various takes. The spread of mis- and disinformation is a frequent complaint about social media. Often, “The Algorithm” is blamed, rather than human nature. The role of influencers and traditional media tends to be ignored.

The original news was posted twice. Right now these posts have a score of 80 and 456 upvotes.

Being active on Lemmy has pretty much convinced me that claims about some evil algorithm being responsible for all the ills of social media are baseless.

https://lemmy.world/post/31866458

https://lemmy.world/post/31865309

The answer is yes. There is a lot of disinformation being spread, maybe to influence juries, or maybe to undermine the already beleaguered rule of law in the US. The truth is that there is very little unexpected about these judgments. That’s how fair use works.

Yes, Otherwise it wouldn’t lower the value.

There is a lot of disinformation being spread, maybe to influence juries, or maybe to undermine the already beleaguered rule of law in the US. The truth is that there is very little unexpected about these judgments. That’s how fair use works.

I don’t know what that is talking about.

Not comparable.

Samples are actual copies which are part of a song. Someone might claim that a hip hop artist just steals the good bits of other people’s songs and mashes them together without contributing any meaningful creativity on their own. Well. History shows that such arguments were quite foolish. Nevertheless, the copies are there, and they do add value to the new song.

To get an LLM model to spit out training data takes careful manipulation by the user. This rarely happens by accident. It also does not add value to the model. It does the opposite: The possibility of accidentally violating copyright lowers the value.

Huh? The court affirmed that there are limits to private property. Not sure how to interpret that comment.

Yeah. The US Supreme Court made a serious mistake when it killed hip hop.

Still, samples are copies, even if just copies of a short part of the original. It’s not the same.

Maybe he doesn’t. Someone like Alsup is an exception. Doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in the end.

…expecting sex “in return”.

Just a joke. People rarely give away drugs without expecting something in return. Even on Halloween.

People are giving out free drugs to anyone? Oh no! Kudos to this brave person for speaking out with no regard for what that might do to their own business.

For a moment there, I thought the UK was splitting up.

Prove you’re not a camel. Props to Timothy Snyder for calling that one.

Yes. I’ve already edited the OP.