I can see this catching on in the US with a lot of cultural exceptions that would amplify the library as an either an ideological battleground or sanctuary.
> Then came a threat. An account with a much larger following DM'd her and told her to take down the sign, or they would post about it to their local artist community. The person offered to help her find an artist to pay to make a new sign, or else they would post about it.
> They gave her a day to "think about it."
When this is sort of behavior that the "good guys" advance then it's hard not to expect a "bad guy" with money to show up on the scene and thwart it.
> Guy: Unfortunately if you won't change it I will be sharing it with the community
> Guy: I've love to support you in getting it remade ethically for cheap but if you're not willing to I'm going to let other artists know
> Guy: I understand you didn't know at the time, that's ok. That's why I'm trying to help
> Guy: I'll give you a day to think about it and I'll get you some names and prices of people who could either make a new poster or write up the board for you
> Owner: I have been attacked enough because of this. Disrespected and defeated how people bombarded me with mean comments and DMs. Many have unfollowed me. Go ahead and share if that's what makes you happy.
That's "the threat" the article is referring to. Incredibly bad framing, if you hadn't read the conversation you'd think the guy would have threatened to send armed goons, instead he's telling her he'll give the coffee shop bad press in a local image board.
Not saying I approve, but it's nowhere near as bad as the people who went off on the title alone think it is.
A threat of what? Posting in local communities to talk about reasons to avoid a certain business is not an abusive or dangerous behavior, people do it all the time for all sorts of reasons, legitimate and not. Almost none of them have the consideration to talk to the business before doing it, so frankly this is a step above that.
Look, I hate your post. I think you used AI to generate it. I will give you one day to delete it and to hire someone I know to make another post for you. If you don't do that, I will go and tell a bunch of people that you're an asshole, and they may or may not come here and harass you too.
Signed,
A very normal person doing things people do all the time for all sorts of reasons
That's actually really bad. The guy is threatening the poor store owner, complete with stupid movie cliches like claiming he's just helping when in fact the intent is absolutely not to help but to bully, threaten and in general wreck the guys business if he doesn't go along with this set of Mafia codes.
Also, you have to consider the context here. The sort of people who make these threats are invariably very left wing, and they have a long history of using violence against anyone they view to be doing harm to their protected classes. Whoever gets this sort of threat will be wondering if some Antifa type is going to throw a rock through their window.
> The sort of people who make these threats are invariably very left wing, and they have a long history of using violence against anyone they view to be doing harm to their protected classes.
The overwhelming majority of political violence in this country comes from the right [0].
You are trying to fearmonger by weaving a narrative that includes the mafia and antifa, a narrative that doesn't fit the events described in TFA. There is no credible threat of violence, at most the guy will use his platform to bad-mouth her buisness (questionable, I'll concede). Antifa doesn't throw bricks at coffee shops because they used AI.
My local coffee shop not only doesn’t have social media, but they don’t even bother decorating the store. Truly unique and amazing coffee, absolutely no design inside. It’s amazing and it really turns people off!
It’s more about the way it was phrased and presented. Just sharing publicly available facts with your community (or anyone really) is not a problem in itself, but the message does rub me the wrong way.
The message’s author is trying to present themselves as someone helpful and compassionate (‘I understand’, ‘I’m trying to help’), but at the same time, they’re one-sidedly setting a firm and short deadline (‘I’ll give you a day’) unprompted and suggesting the café owner strike a deal with one of the people they’re going to recommend. They might have written this with good intentions at heart, but it also wouldn’t feel out of place in a mafia setting (as in ‘do business with us, or else’), so it’s a hard sell.
If they really were compassionate and wanted to help, they easily could have suggested to get the owner in touch with some affordable artists and left her with time to mentally deal with the backlash and all. They didn’t need to emphasise how they were going to tell on her like they were about to launch a vendetta smear campaign or something.
protection rackets involve crime and violence. talking to people about a business doing things you don't like is neither of those things. that's just coopting actual victimhood in an effort to make people disapproving of how you do business a crime.
There are no good intentions here. This is the mafia playbook through and through - "It would be a pity if something were to happen to your <insert valuable property or reputation here>".
Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. A business generally wants to keep their customers happy and care for their reputation, so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal.
The important thing is how we go about it, and whether their reputation remains reflective of their actions, or we try and make it worse than it ought to be. We can’t say for certain the author of the message was going to do the latter, but it does not inspire good faith.
I wrote my comment with the assumption that the ‘basic idea’ was intentionally making reputation worse on account of poor behaviour, and communicating that to the business owner. Of course, if you imagine the basic idea to be the extortive aspect, then it is literally extortion.
but the only way they can "fuck up" this business is by influencing their reputation. no one is getting a brick through their window. this is an attempt to try to mutate basic feedback mechanisms until they're equivalent to physical violence and turn "I won't shop here and neither will my friends" into "literally extortion".
> "A business generally wants to keep their customers happy and care for their reputation, so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal."
Yes, except this case isn't about a customer—it's a disgruntled vendor (commercial artist) acting on behalf of an association of other vendors. Not (AFAICT) on behalf of real customers.
A customer complaining about their needs and preferences is useful feedback.
A vendor whom you have no business relationship with (and want none) is not helpful.
If they criticize your business practices in public, that's certainly their right. But, if they're threatening to do that, with an attached demand of commercial services to them (or to their associates), that's something else. It's the linked demand for payment that loses them all legitimacy. (Possibly even into criminal racketeering; I'm not an expert).
Certainly, but considerate the alternative: the account simply publicly posts about a public posting (not private business). Which happens all of the time for public ridicule or shame. At least this provides some recourse for the person affected. Sure, the alternative is simply to not post in the first place; but such is the nature of large social media accounts.
This is ludicrous, I'm sorry. People are treating this minor social scuffle like they're going to burn the business down. No, they're not saying 'work with us or die' unless you read it in the most hostile way possible to be terrified of something mundane. To them, the AI is the problem, if the owner took it down and replaced it with a Microsoft Word printout, they would be satisfied. Trying to recommend an artist they know may come off as an advertisement or as trying to get ahead of the owner claiming there's no one who can do this kind of work, depending on how charitable you want to be. But no matter how you read it, this isn't a mob boss forcing you into a protection racket. It's just some guy who probably wanted to name and shame on a Facebook group but decided to hold off for one day.
the crux of whether or not this is extortion isn't just "something I don't like happens". it's not extortion to dislike a business's practice, and it's not extortion to tell your friends about it. it may be distasteful, maybe even shitty (in fact I'd go so far as to say that even while I agree with the idea I really don't like how they did it) but to criminalize what this person said is to criminalize the idea of not doing business with someone because you don't like their actions and is an attack on free speech.
I don’t deny that based on the screenshot there is both strong-arming and a lack of sympathy or empathy from the other account towards the fact that it seems like many people are just using AI tools without giving it a second thought.
However, I’m just pointing out that as far as the implications of the threat goes, in most instances it would’ve just happened anyway, without a “warning”, because people simply post things to make fun of them and mock them. Sometimes those accounts might at least anonymize their subjects, but this might be a name them and shame them type situation.
It's an implied threat, which you can infer from the presentation of the information. For example:
You really should listen to me. If you need some time to think it over, I understand. It's a lot to consider and you've got a lot in your plate. I'll check in soon - would tomorrow be okay? If you need more time, just tell me when.
vs
You really should listen to me. I'll give you a day to think it over before I take further action.
Same information, but the latter assumes a position of authority (I, the person in charge, will be the provider of the time you will receive), and then uses that position to provide an ostensible benevolence as a way to mitigate the implied follow up of non-benevolence. The threat is introduced as the power disparity. The person in power has leverage over the less powerful and the threat is that they will use it. Remove the power disparity, and the implication of threat is also removed.
Unions also use the threat of striking as a leverage point against corporations. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, there seems to be a common fallacy in this thread of "threat = bad". Laws are threats too. You need a more convincing argument than this.
My comment is about how inference and implication can change the result of a message just as much as the content or context. Whatever axe you've got to grind about threats being bad has nothing to do with what I said. Laws are threats. Unions make threats. So what? My point stands. Things that are obviously threats are threats, and things that say the same things in different ways might not be threats.
Laws are threats. The difference is that we empower the government to threaten us to maintain social order, we do not empower individuals to threaten each other.
Sharing it with the community could have negative impact on her business. So they were threatening her business success by sharing the info in a certain form with the community.
This. Based on the headline I was expecting a physical threat on the owner, instead we get a screenshot of them treating it as a learning opportunity and the owner responding in an incredibly condescending way.
It literally is not. You can maybe phrase it to sort of sound like a threat but “I’m going to share your public ad” is never a threat. It’s like if you angrily yell “I’m going to come to a complete stop at this upcoming stop sign!” in a threatening voice and then do that, it wasn’t a threat. Great. That’s what the sign is for. That’s what everyone wants you to do.
In the context of how it was done, saying that they would give them a list of people and a day to think it over, it really is a threat, it's a kind of extortion.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what extortion is. It's only extortion if the one extorting is the one receiving the benefit. Hiring a random artist on Fiverr would still make them happy (since the poster is not AI) but would not benefit them in any way.
That's not what the "threat" said. It said that they would give them a list of people, it isn't obvious that hiring some random would have made them happy. It's not even obvious whether this wasn't just a convenient way to make some money for a friend.
I understand if you don't like how the person phrased it, but the goal of the DM was obviously to get the store owner to replace the AI poster. Assuming that they would have gone on a crusade because they didn't pick a "preferred artist" is pure unsupported speculation on your part.
It is worth pointing out that the article doesn’t even imply that the business suffered any negative outcome here (ie damage or loss of sales etc.) It also doesn’t implied that the person threatened that the business might suffer any negative outcome, just that they would talk about the ad that the business made and put out for people to see and share.
This article is very careful not to actually elaborate on what the “threat” might’ve meant because I’d imagine that baselessly speculating out loud about what they imagine it could be would open them up to getting sued.
It’s all just uwu smol bean coffee shop chiropractor bullied by mean anti-ai mob dreck
Saying you’ll do something that’ll harm someone (or, more precisely in this instance, their business) can reasonably be called a threat (in the broad sense of the word), though not necessarily the unfair kind of threat most people imagine when they say ‘threat’.
You can threaten someone with ceasing to be a customer if they don’t change their business practices, and that’s perfectly fine. Sharing publicly available information is generally not a problem, either. But in this case, the author of the message is coming off as very insincere, setting deadlines, and trying to strike up deals, which comes off as unreasonable and makes one wonder if they really are simply going to share publicly available information, or if they’re going to give undue focus over them being ‘uncooperative’. If they did not want their message to come off as a threat, this was very far from an ideal way to write it.
I think it’s pretty evident that letting ‘other artists’ (or ‘the community’) know implies hurting the business (since they are likely to disappreciate the use of AI, the way many other people have).
All we’ve got to go off is a screenshot of a vaguely weird DM. Seeing as the article didn’t mention any type of harm at all, what is the evident harm here?
This is an article on a news website about how somebody got a dm lol, there was never any threat, they would’ve written about it if there was
Hey now, these folks are -really enjoying- their highly contrived version of the events. How dare you limit their enjoyment by recontextualizing this into what most of my non-highly-online friends would view as the "normal" understanding.
As a person who went through and eventuall rejected the culture-jamming adbusters thoughts in the early 2000s, it's really hard for me to view a threat to share an ad as anything other than a "threat" to increase the "organic reach of the ad" or whatever "metric" that folks here would use.
They appear to stand for nothing nor care for anything but the idea that everything to do with technology is terrible—with exception for pop science discovery.
Once there was a blackout in my neighborhood that affected commercial properties too. While driving down the street in total darkness the only structure that stuck out when my headlights pressed them was the local Mexican restaurant which isn't traditional in the least—it sort of looks like what Davy Crockett would've built if he survived the Alamo and opened a Cheesecake Factory. But it stood out that night.
...which is to say that the current social condition belongs to the tail end of a continuum, the trajectory of which is less important to comprehend than the so-called "jetztzeit" is, which is supposedly incomprehensible itself?
Is there a Hacker News where there's submissions and talk about AI but it's just sort of like 7 guys in Chelsea boots while one of them doing Romanian dead lifts and squats off in the corner; the audio edition of The Origins of the Second World War has been playing on a consistent loop for the past week and they burn myrrh resin?
For evidence that Bluesky is a long-term living facility operating as a social media platform...look no further than how their users employ the word "skeet" to refer to "post".
I don't think that quote helps your case or detracts from the parent.
Tangentially—and perhaps counterintuitively—it can be taken as an argument in favor of the name change.
The statement also does little to address the ethical concerns at the root of the relationship between industries and the military.
They noted it but I think the important part was before then the Department of War only really existed when congress declared war. Once the war was over 95% of those people went home and back into civilian life. So even if a President wanted to start a war they had limited resources to do so unless Congress declared war and re-expanded or formed a Department of War.
Right. But somewhere in between then and now the powers of the President expanded so that "the actual exercise of military force" in the name of defense ("preserving the freedom and independence of the United States and its allies") involved fighting in wars.
This may sound ignorant but it looks like ERSC intends to situate itself as a middle ground between tools that are supported by more general purpose protocols (i.e., Tangled and apparently, eventually, Forgejo) and tools that trying to maintain the whole shebang (like Radicle).
The exception here being that ERSC also apparently intends to be less dependent on git than the others too.
Sort of! It's not that we're against general purpose protocols, it's just that they need to be fit for purpose. For folks for whom the git protocol works for them, we're happy to support it. We just need more than that.
And yeah, we're not dependent on git-the-codebase at all.
reply