While other companies around the world are constantly in search of new ways to screw their own consumers
You bastard, take that upvote.
They can buy the stock before the vote, knowing which way the vote is gonna go.
Well that would seemingly be against the "STOCK" act. I'm sure the SEC would have something to say about that...
lol :(
Frankly we should get rid of career politicians. Serving in public office should be more like jury duty. Civil servants do the real legwork.
I'd go even further, and say that we don't need "representatives" anymore. We all own devices that allow us to communicate across the world instantly, we all could potentially have our say directly in matters that concern us. The issues with this are ultimately only technical, and thus could be overcome.
Media has slagged off direct democracy many times (eg the Jack Black episode of the Mandalorian) but I truly believe that is what a real democracy would be. Yes, things like Brexit can happen when people get the chance to vote, but that only happened because of a sustained disinformation campaign - one that could not be maintained indefinitely for every issue under vote. If people had a chance to vote on how things are implemented and whether or not it was actually working these problems could be mitigated, and overall we would end up with a more functional and progressively better system for society.
That isn't the deal as described in the contract. That is how they try to frame the deal after the fact, to convince people to let them get away with it.
The site is free to access. While you access it, they claim rights to your data, or in this case the output of your work. It is not an exchange of access for data/labor, it is a free provision with terms snuck in via the fine print.
The Thargoids are coming.
One time I flew transatlantic with my two young kids and their mum, I swear the flight attendants were trying to see how drunk they could reasonably get me.
If they're being generous, be gracious - but don't forget to ask for more. It doesn't come out of their pockets and you've already paid a bomb (on land I can say that word).
Needs more denim and flower print. With pockets that extend below, to really make the ladies jealous.
The service is free to use. My access to it is not conditional to my authentic participation in unpaid labor, and nor is it equivalent.
Personal data has value. Thought has value. Commercial enterprises like this attempt to suppress that value, while simultaneously using it to position themselves amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. They should pay us for our data.
What they do is akin to a car manufacturer saying they shouldn't pay the person who makes nuts and bolts, because nuts and bolts have far less value than a car, and the people who make nuts and bolts do not know how to build a car. This is would be a ridiculous scenario; it is also ridiculous that users aren't paid fairly for their data.
If people were paid fairly for their data, then these businesses would have no scope to raise the price of their product in line with this new (fair) material cost. This is because the cost of their product is already an exaggeration of the value they provide. They sell their product for more than it's worth, meanwhile they pay their data suppliers (every single human being) nothing. Of course they don't want you to realise the value they're taking, doing so could only reduce their profits.
HIS HOUSE HAS THE APPARATUS!!
I'm serious, do not call my Shirley.
3, 4, 6, 8 have the kind of lighting that a person might be drawn towards. The kind of thing they're trying to train AI towards. My answers are meant to seem like the kind that AI would accept as a human answer, while also being wrong to the human eye.
It's 4D chess. You have to predict what the AI thinks you would think, and agree with that, while providing an objectionable answer to the things AI is uncertain about.
If they want the right answer, they should be paying us for it. They're a business, labor shouldn't be free for them.
No, there's far more depth to that. The goal isn't for you to prove yourself human, the goal is to teach an AI how to "think more human".
1, 2 and 7 are obviously cold. They're oustide, with no "warm" colour lighting.
3 and 6 are both green houses, the green house could be considered "warm", but 3 has light on the inside. This is perhaps a test against AI readers. To a human, they both seem warm inside, but an AI might differentiate based on the lighting.
9 is a dark brown house, but 8 is a light brown house that is illuminated by external lighting. This contrasts with 3 and 6, because 6 has external lighting but it does not illuminate much.
4 and 5 are both internal shots. 4 is light and airy, meanwhile 5 is a bit more grey - but then, grey is the fashion these days.
All in all this is a bullshit test made up by bullshit people looking to get a bullshit result, with which they hope to make money off of.
You're working to help them make more money, meanwhile they don't pay you for your labor. They also collect data from your connection to their servers - as well as the website you're trying to access, you will almost certainly be connecting to at least 2 other servers to deliver this hcaptcha, and thanks to cooperation with the website host hcaptcha will triangulate the internet routing and fingerprinting information to attain a significantly accurate identification of you as an indvidual (which they will then consolidate with whatever other information they have).
Much like a disgruntled worker might "phone it in", or work within the requirements of their paid employment, or "quiet quit"; you should limit and perhaps even poison the output you give in proportion to what you're being paid for your labor.
The goal isn't to satisfy captcha, the goal is to get passed it while giving as little commercial value as they compensate you for.
Your data has value. If it didn't, then Facebook and Google wouldn't be amongst the wealthiest businesses in the world. You own the value they establish themselves with, they just claim a license.
It absolutely is deceptive. The captcha does not openly tell the user "if you complete this you're going to train an AI system for us which we will eventually sell for profit". The user is merely told to "prove that you're human". The terms and conditions or privacy policy also don't spell things out in plain English, it's all generalised statements meant to disguise what they're doing.
It's also not true that everyone benefits. The user is supposed to gain access to the website for free - the website wants users to visit. However, the website wants to prevent non-user bots from accessing the website. Instead of the website paying for a service to prevent bots and taking that as part of their overhead costs, the website is getting the user to provide unpaid labor to pay a third party for the service that the website wants. The service gets a benefit, the website doesn't have to pay, the user has to do all the work with no fair reward.
If it was literally just proving the user was human, that would be different. These systems extract further value from the user, for which the user is not compensated.
It might only be a small thing, a few pennies here and there, but they're stealing pennies from everyone.