“Contacts” is a very very different permission from making and managing phone calls, and is prompted for separately.

The former harvests data, the latter can be used to steal money directly via the same mechanism we used to text numbers to buy ringtones and J2ME apps back in the day.

Now I’m not saying that Rednote is definitively malware and I actually kinda like some of the content I saw, which I couldn’t say for TikTok (I’m way too ADHD for short form videos, it’s very unstimulating), but maybe just keep it in mind.

Thousands of people download this shit too.

But why would any legitimate app ask for a permission for which there is practically no legitimate use? I thought Rednote was a social media thing, not a Caller application, so why does it need to make and manage phone calls on my behalf?

What else is it doing that it doesn’t need to ask permissions for? Please think critically.

And yes before someone mentions It, yes this can be used for getting a phone number automatically, but It can just prompt for my phone number (which it doesn’t need anyway, unless you post), no legitimate need to ask for such a broad permission.

More to the point, why tf are y’all so chill about this? Surely this is like literally a sign of malware 101? Like I’m only a compsci & cybersec grad so what do I know, but this to me is equivalent to opening “not a virus.exe” from “veryrealmoviedownload.com”. Literally first malware I got as a kid on Android was like this.

I thought awareness of this was pretty commonplace. The below image is literally a Facebook-tier meme that even grampa probably knows.

Are y’all just that desperate for a win? Sorry, good things don’t actually happen in our hell world.

Is this a normal thing for apps to do these days? I don’t use any other SM apart from Lemmy and only F-Droid FOSS apps so i’d legitimately like to know. Does tiktok also prompt for making and managing phone calls?

Uhmmmm no thanks lol WTF

Removed by mod

If Starmer had any balls then he’d undo the Johnson assignment to the BBC chair and give it to someone who would kick out the TERFs and other cunts to at least dial it back to the passive-progressive era.

This isn’t even just a morally good thing, it’d be smart in a basic selfish way. Labour has done some very mildly good things internal policy wise with the trains and bills, but they’re getting fucked in the media with a country that’s full of hate constantly stirred by extreme Far-Right narratives.

God I hate respectability politics, anyone remotely decent takes the high road, and worse and worse people keep coming out of the woodwork and punch lower and lower and then they win. Fucking sucks.

Who uses uTorrent anymore lol.

Use qbittorrent, download torrents with a good amount of seeds from reputable trackers and your speeds should be significantly faster than direct downloads. It’s not 2002, you don’t need to download NFS for the PSP split across 100 .rar files from Mediafire or turbobit (or megaupload if you were lucky).

Oh, I don’t use the algorithm. I have watch history off and only watch from my subscriptions page, that plus uBlock, Sponsorblock + DeArrow and any number of shorts blocker extensions make YouTube much more tolerable imo, highly recommend. I also archive my Favourites playlist (over 6k vids at this point) with yt-dlp to avoid losing videos and use Piped and invidious to get around geoblocks.

Shit site with mostly shit torrents for plebs. At least that’s my association, it’s where the YIFY consoomers go.

No, that RARBG is gone, this is just a successor site using the name and hosting the old RARBG torrents.

I’m not using a fake clone site, I’m using a fan-made successor site.

https://www.reddit.com/r/trackers/comments/16hro1r/introducing_therarbg_a_fork_of_the_nowdefunct/

Pls lurk moar before you spout more FUD.

I’ve not had any issues with it and it has the og RARBG encodes with actual seeds (search ORARBG).

Oh gotcha. I don’t watch those.

What

Chad

None? Huh maybe I’m lucky. I use Rutracker, therarbg, nyaa and occasionally in a pinch a 1337x mirror (I know I know).

Where did you find this? Never seen anything like it in my whole life

…I don’t see how this has any relevancy at all, since the whole purpose of an LLM is to make new – arguably derivative – works on an industrial scale, not just single copies for personal use.

Because it’s the same basic reason that hard-drives are legal. With a hard drive and a PC I can make practically infinite copies of copyrighted material off e.g. a DVD.

Only the wrongful redistribution of such copies is an actual crime, not providing the tooling for it, otherwise Seagate or whatever HDD manufacturer would be liable for copyright infringement I commit using it’s drives, so would my ISP if I distributed it etc etc.

The ruling was particularly clear: the basis for why VCRs were allowed to stay was because they had non-infringing uses. Same with hard drives.

I’m sure you see where I’m going with this. Because LLMs can allow you to generate things that (regardless of your opinion on whether all outputs are theft) wouldn’t stand up to substantial similarity tests in court, they have non-infringing uses.

Therefore, it’s the person who prompts and generates the image of copyright infringing material that’s responsible, not the researcher, patent-holder, programmer, dataset provider, supplier or distributor of the LLM.

To be clear, I think it ought to be the case

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

Thank you, I’m glad someone is sane ITT.

To further refine the point, do you know of any lawsuits that were ruled successfully on the basis that as you say - the company that made the LLM is responsible because someone could prompt it to reproduce identifiable chunks of copyright material? Which specific bills make it so?

Wouldn’t it be like suing Seagate because I use their hard drives to pirate corpo media? I thought Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. would serve as the basis there and just like Betamax it’d be distribution of copyright material by an end user that would be problematic, rather than the potential of a product to be used for copyright infringement.

Training LLMs on copyright material isn’t illegal to begin with, just like how learning from a pirated book isn’t or having drugs in your system isn’t, only being in possession of these things is illegal.

GDPR violations are on the other hand - illegal. You’re right in principle, don’t get me wrong and I appreciate your healthy cynicism but in this particular case being slapped with a GDPR fine is actually not worth keeping the data of one user.

Edit: Downvoted for being right as usual. Bruh Lemmy is becoming more and more like Reddit every day.

What is this device? Oversized pager?