Blueberrydreamer

It definitely matters. There's a world of difference between right leaning and actual fascism.

Get the fuck out of here with that dumb shit.

Read the study before jumping to obvious and incorrect conclusions. All the participants in the study have guns in the house.

Yeah, I'm hoping they finally figure out the tutorial balance in Wilds. Earlier games had next to nothing for tutorials, and you pretty much had to look outside the game to even understand the basic movesets of the weapons, much less how things like skills work. I think they overcorrected with the recent ones though, it'd be nice if they could get a little better about introducing information in the world instead of constantly stopping the action to make sure the player sees it.

She's an elected leader for the unified Maori tribes, a largely ceremonial role whose primary purpose is to protect Maori interests against government overreach.

But go ahead and latch onto the name I guess.

Thanks for the info! I guess that's ultimately what I'm looking for more about: how much do we know about cellular traffic? Obviously with encryption we can't just directly read cell signals to find out what's being sent, so do people just record the volume of data being sent in individual packets and make educated guesses?

It seems plausible to run a simple(non-AI) algorithm to isolate probable conversations and send stripped and compressed audio chunks along with normal data. I assume that's still probably too hard to hide, but if anyone out there knows of someone that's looked for this stuff, I'd love to check it out.

It's almost like they were asking about sources for people looking or something.

If you're not going to contribute, why are you wasting people's time?

It's a reasonable explanation, and what I typically assume to be true. Still, I'm curious about the actual mechanics, and if it potentially could be being done by Google without the larger tech industry being aware of it.

That makes sense, but isn't it assuming they're processing data on the device? I would expect them to send raw audio back to be processed by Google ad services. Obviously it wouldn't work without signal either, but that's hardly a limitation.

As someone else pointed out, how does the google song recognition work? That's active without triggering the light indicating audio recording, and is at least processing enough audio data to identify songs.

As someone relatively ignorant about the mechanics of something like this, would it not make more sense that the app would be getting this data from the Android OS, with Google's knowledge and cooperation?

The place I see the most unsettling ads (that seem to be driven by overheard conversation) tends to be the google feed itself, so it seems reasonable to me that they could be using and selling that information to others as well, and merely disguising how the data were acquired.

Your black and white view of this is exhausting. There is obviously a difference between making assumptions about a population based on inherent qualities, and making assumptions about a group of people based on all making the same decision. It is not stereotyping to assume that someone posting in a Donald Trump fan group is a fan of Donald Trump.

Now, I certainly wouldn't approve of infringing on anyone's actual first amendment rights on this kind of basis, but again, we're talking about completely private spaces here with absolutely no pretense of free speech. People do also have every right to create whatever exclusionary communities that they want.

So, say I was anti-Trump and I posted there... I would still be misunderstood as an "other" and labeled, banned, etc. Then have to appeal a ban for a judgement incorrectly pre-passed on me.

This is extra weird to me. Isn't this already the exact scenario you're claiming? The one that started the whole discussion? You've been claiming to be centrist and that you only posted there once, but now you're throwing it out like it's some hypothetical? I've been trying to assume the best here but it's getting increasingly difficult to believe you're anything but a bad actor trying to stir people up.

You are inadvertently supporting the same bases of bias that racial segregation came form.

No, sorry, but that's pretty dumb. There's nothing wrong with creating a conversation space that excludes people who make certain choices. That's the fundamental difference here. You weren't born into the wrong subreddit, you chose to post there. And a hell of a lot of people that choose to post there aggressively harass anyone questioning law enforcement. It's a nice way to weed out people who have no interest in good faith contributions, and there's an easy way to get unbanned for cases just like yours.

That is not in any way the same 'base of bias' as excluding people based on their race, gender, nationality, or sexual preferences.

Your entitlement is incredible.

Of course it isn't immoral to have private discussion groups. That's an absurd idea. Subreddits are private conversation spaces, not a public service, you aren't owed access to any of them. Do you have the same emotional reaction to invite only subreddits?

Have you stopped to consider for a moment why that filter might have been established?