FiskFisk33

in a democracy the latter has to be preceded by the former.

Preliminary findings from july

• First, X designs and operates its interface for the “verified accounts” with the “Blue checkmark” in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users. Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a “verified” status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the “verified account” to deceive users.
• Second, X does not comply with the required transparency on advertising, as it does not provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository, but instead put in place design features and access barriers that make the repository unfit for its transparency purpose towards users. In particular, the design does not allow for the required supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.
• Third, X fails to provide access to its public data to researchers in line with the conditions set out in the DSA. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service. In addition, X's process to grant eligible researchers access to its application programming interface (API) appears to dissuade researchers from carrying out their research projects or leave them with no other choice than to pay disproportionally high fees.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3761

peer networks are not illegal if the peers are consenting members.

Totally doable if this was a distributed service.

ok not randomly generated, but you know

are you implying firefox is in a state of neglect?

uh, why not?

What's the point of a summary that's longer than the article itself?

hmm, true enough. But in my mind there's a clear difference between showing information unedited and referring to its source, and this.

That's a good point, that muddies the waters a bit. Makes it hard to say wether it's spouting info from the web or if it's data from the model.

I can't comment on actual legality in this case, but I feel handling personal data like this, even from the open web, in a context where hallucinations are an overwhelming possibility, is still morally wrong. I don't know the GDPR well enough to say wether it covers temporary information like this, but I kinda hope it does.

Maybe he has a insta profile with the name of his kids in his bio

Irrelevant. The data being public does not make it up for grabs.

‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’);

They store his personal data without his permission.

also

Information that is inaccurately attributed to a specific individual, be it factually incorrect or information that in reality is related to another individual, is still considered personal data as it relates to that specific individual. If data are inaccurate to the point that no individual can be identified, then the information is not personal data.

Storing it badly, does not make them excempt.

then again

but it also mixed "clearly identifiable personal data"—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen's children and the name of his hometown—with the "fake information,"

The made up bullshit aside, this should be a quite clear indicator of an actual GDPR breach

No I'm not, that part is absolutely hallucinated. Where the problem comes in is that it then output correct personal information about him and his children. A to me clear violation of GDPR.

but it also mixed "clearly identifiable personal data"—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen's children and the name of his hometown—with the "fake information,"