technoxenoholic

[technoxenoholic]

YouTube will use AI to monitor your viewing habits to determine if you're under 18 and require an ID for you to view certain content, yes even if you're in the US.

Now. I have some questions. Like if I watch kids shows from the 90s is that a mark for me being over 30 because it's an old TV show? Or under 30 because it's a kid's show?

Okay question aside.

There's legitimate reasons to have "odd" viewing habits. I for one have chronic fatigue. I've fallen asleep with Youtube's autoplay on and will wake up 3 hours later with the weirdest shit playing (sometimes it's kids stuff).

I'm learning 2 languages. I will watch kids shows in those languages to help me practice and pick up the language. (Muzzy in Gondoland is SO CUTE). But it's really helpful to watch shows that are like "Red orange yellow green! One two three!" To learn the basics like your colors, numbers, days of the week.

Also. Bronies... adults like kids shows. Sometimes they got a really good message like MLP. Sometimes for Nostalgia, I mean Pokémon is still going, and I watch that for nostalgia.

"No, but AI would be smarter than that!"

Is it? Is it really? Bitch if kids want to watch YouTube, that's what YouTube Kids is for. We don't need your 1984 bullshit monitoring our fucking watching habits.

"I don't understand why you're so upset. Just give them your ID." Because I'm a developer. I watch programmers increasingly use AI to fucking program their goddamn software every fucking day. And the thing is AI is really fucking bad at it. It leads to issues like the Tea app leak.

The Tea app was an app where women warned other women in the dating scene about red flag men in the area and they could ask other women if the guy that were dating was a red flag. That app had women upload their Drivers Licenses, and they recently had a leak due to shitty security protocols caused by AI coding causing a legacy database to literally be open to the public, with so security features to keep any old random person from accessing it. All of the data in that database what just... dumped to the open internet. Location data. IDs. All of it.

So, no... I'm not gonna me uploading my ID anywhere BECAUSE I'VE SEEN HOW POORLY SOME OF YOUR ASSHOLES CODE. And by "how poorly you code" I mean you don't fucking code. You just give it to AI and the fucking dumbass system wouldn't know a security feature if it punched it in the face.

Suck my dick. You're not "keeping the kids safe" you're exposing everyone to identity threats.

-fae

[technoxenoholic]

i walk a fine line between “i’m asexual and i hate how much the world revolves around sex” and “sex is way too stigmatized and people should be able to be more open about it if they want to”

[technoxenoholic]

real "get a load of this guy" hours on technoxenoholic dot tungl the past couple days, huh? anyway, i've blocked that dipshit and won't be addressing anything else they say.

[technoxenoholic]

you seem to be making a lot of huge fucking assumptions about who and what i am, what i believe, and what i am or am not doing in my real actual life to tangibly support disabled people in my community that i didn't bother to type up online because i'm not a performative shitstain.

but i'm also not your fucking strawman. so let's go through this point by point, shall we?

"bodily autonomy? what you really mean is genocide"

no. i am staunchly anti-genocide. no one should be killed for political reasons. ever. if you don't believe in actual bodily autonomy, which means bodily autonomy even when YOU don't like what someone is doing with their body, then frankly you can go fuck yourself.

"margaret singer was a genocidal eugenicist"

so were a lot of fucking psychiatrists and scientists in general, and i don't respect any of them for it. margaret singer has precisely nothing to do with my personal beliefs or politics, and frankly i don't know why you thought she was relevant to bring up. i've reached my conclusions on moral questions such as bodily autonomy by listening to many, many other marginalized people who were/are speaking about their experiences. i care a lot more about actual people than being a perfect theorist who can say no wrong.

"why is it that you pro choice assholes never talk about anti ableism and how to help disabled people beyond liberal reformist talking points"

i do, actually. i do this all the time. just as one example from this summer, i walked (with my cane) around my local fairgrounds this summer with one of the fair board directors, pointing out the accessibility issues with the old buildings and showing her where stopgap measures could and should be implemented to guarantee access to the main exhibit building for a wheelchair-using vendor for the duration of the fair, basing my critiques on everything i've read by folks like crippled-peeper, wheelie-sick, and briarpatch-kids about their personal experiences with wheelchair access (i name them specifically because i refer to their blogs on the regular, but there are others who i've read on the subject whose usernames i can't recall at the moment). i emphasized the importance of giving that vendor a key to the accessible bathroom so she could still get into it if it was left locked (as is unfortunately the common practice of other fairground building tenants). i also outlined several accessibility requirements for the new building which is being built in (ideally) the next few years. i pushed to ensure actual, physical accessibility for someone in my real, actual irl town. i'd say that counts as a win for anti-ableism, personally.

online, i reblog plenty of posts about the harmful effects of ableism and posts criticizing inadequate liberal anti-ableism measures, to boost the voices of those who are more disabled than myself. i'm not often able to write my own because typing too much is rough on me due to my own disabilities (i am not having a good pain day today, now. thanks for that /sarcasm). i try my best to caption images when i'm able to and i tag any text in images that i wasn't able to transcribe. i'm doing what i can. you don't get to demand i injure myself being performative online for your benefit. i'm not part of your circus and i'm not a trained monkey.

thank you for acknowledging that i am pro choice, by the way. i believe it is the right of the pregnant person to get an abortion for any reason, no questions asked, because forcing someone to divulge the reason for their abortion can put them at risk, and demanding an "acceptable" reason be given to receive an abortion allows eugenics to get its foot in the door. i especially support abortions which are done to protect the life of the pregnant person, especially if the fetus literally cannot (or has already failed to) survive to infancy.

i also believe that any pregnant person who gets an abortion specifically with the goal of killing a disabled fetus just because it's disabled is an abhorrent person, and i do not respect them as an individual. unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that only "good", "moral" abortions happen without yourself allowing eugenics to gain a foothold (and remember: eugenics isn't just about killing and sterilizing the "wrong" type of people, but also about forcing the "right" type of people to have more babies!), which i cannot support. i will always prioritize the life of a person who is already alive over the potential future life of a fetus that isn't a person yet, even if the pregnant person is morally unforgivable or downright evil. human rights are not conditional and can never be conditional, or they don't truly exist at all. the second there's a class of people who can't get abortions, or a class of fetuses that can't be aborted, is the second you are approving of reproductive control.

"you never mention the social model or communism"

i don't specifically mention the social model very often because it isn't often relevant to the conversations i am having. i do not dwell primarily in the world of theory. i do not live in a town where discussing the correct verbiage around disability is especially productive. i live in a town where i need to attend a town hall meeting soon to tell them to stop removing the benches from downtown, parks, etc. basically, i have more important shit to worry about.

and i don't often mention communism because quite frankly i don't know precisely which political ideology i best agree with, and to be completely honest i don't think narrowing down to a specific political label is a productive use of my time or energy. i know what principles i stand for, and communism doesn't encompass all of them. neither does socialism. neither does anarchism. liberalism certainly doesn't. if you think *i* favor sticking to the status quo and respectability politics, you just don't know what you're talking about.

i am cripplepunk. that is the only political label i'm completely confident in, and it's the only political label i need.

"[you] only [mention] that disabled people should stop existing through maid and abortions"

in case it wasn't fucking clear enough already, i don't support maid. i support the right of disabled people who want to die to make that choice for themselves when no supports are sufficient to allow them to live a life they can be content with, and i support their freedom to choose medically assisted suicide to avoid suffering (i don't want people forced into hanging, stabbing, or poisoning themselves out of necessity. do you??). i don't support the government maid program which is used as a "solution" to the "problem" of disabled people needing support, instead of actually providing it.

and i repeat, any pregnant person who gets an abortion to kill a disabled fetus because it's disabled is abhorrent. any doctor who recommends abortion for any reason to a pregnant person who doesn't already want it besides "the fetus is dead/dying/is 100% guaranteed to die before or at birth" or "you, the pregnant person, are dying or otherwise severely at risk of dying as a result of this pregnancy" is abhorrent, and should be barred from practicing medicine.

Lived reality LOL. This is funny to me because i am trans and bi and i use to be militantly homophobic so sorry think your just coming form a place of internalize ableism. I use to be a "i am bisexual but i would never have gay sex because it a sin agaist god" type of person.

i had to take your whole quote for that one. i am... actually aghast. you think the actual real experiences of other disabled people aren't important? you dismiss their lived reality as a valid perspective to consider? you think i'm expressing internalized ableism... for deliberately deferring to other disabled people about their own experiences instead of making a bunch of assumptions and putting my own shit on them? you know, like you're fucking doing to me with this jackass strawmanning you're doing?

and just for the record, i'm also trans -- nonbinary, and xenogender specifically. i'm aroace and polyamorous. you don't get to play the "i'm queer and used to be a bigot" card like that grants you the moral high ground, because it doesn't. i am queer and never in my life had a phase where i used god or anything else as a cudgel against my fellow queer people, and you bragging that you used to be homophobic is not the flex you think it is. i was once ignorant of these things, yes. and there are things i am still ignorant about, which i obviously can't name because that's what ignorance means. i don't know them! but i am someone who reacts to new information by learning as much as i can and critically analyzing as many "sides" as i can before coming to conclusions, and i will always favor allowing people to define themselves if they're not harming anyone else. i have always had this approach of listening to people about their own experiences, even back to my earliest childhood memories.

you are projecting your own prior bigotry onto me. i am not going to sit here and let you make me into the guy you made up to be mad at. that's your problem, not mine. and frankly, it's irrelevant to this discussion, so i'm not going to entertain it further.

Also it funny to me that you reject the social model of disability because it also spare you the unpaid labor of accommodating people tot he point of triviality.

you've made the mistake of assuming that "i'm critical of the social model" means "i reject the social model". those are not synonymous. being critical of something means you acknowledge its flaws and do not hold it as gospel. the social model of disability falls short in multiple areas. i recognize that it has its uses, and it is good for describing the experiences of some disabled people, and some situations. the medical model of disability also has flaws, but has its uses and is good for describing some disabled people and situations.

i believe the biopsychosocial model of disability has the most merit of any model i've encountered, because its whole purpose is to account for physical, psychological, and social factors in disability. i don't think the biopsychosocial model is perfect either, but i believe it lets fewer people slip through the cracks of disability theory.

you seem mighty obsessed with the phrase "accommodating people to the point of triviality". i just don't think that's a realistic way to conceptualize disability justice. there are so, so many disabilities which have symptoms that can never be trivialized. i don't know if you're physically disabled or not -- you list psychomotor agitation on your profile, but you don't specify if that's physically disabling for you. either way it is in extremely bad faith for you to simply dismiss the physically, neurologically, and other disabled people whose disabilities will always affect them in a significant way no matter what accommodations they have. the best accommodations in the world can't reverse nerve or brain damage. the best accommodations in the world can't make degenerative genetic disorders stop their progression. the best accommodations in the world can make you comfortable, but they can't make an incurable terminal illness stop killing you.

accommodation is not always sufficient. treatment is also important. sometimes, end of life care is required. and, like it or not, sometimes the right end of life care is to end someone's life, if that's what they truly want.

in conclusion: shut the fuck up and do something with your life that isn't yelling at cripples on the internet.

so i've realized that my thoughts on the death penalty and my thoughts on assisted suicide are actually fairly similar.

there are people who are so cruel and violent and dangerous (and that way by choice) that it would be safer for everyone else if they were killed. this should never happen without extremely careful oversight, it should never happen before first exhausting all reasonable ways to try and convince that person to change for the better, and the government should never be involved in the decision. vulnerable populations should never be more likely to be subject to the death penalty. vulnerable populations should never be fast-tracked down the pipeline to death row. the death penalty should be the last option, if it is an option at all. there may never be any system in place that can actually meet all ethical requirements for the death penalty. there may never be any application of the death penalty which is above moral and ethical criticism. the history and the current state of racism and ableism have forever destroyed the capacity for the death penalty to be discussed on neutral grounds.

there are people whose quality if life is so poor (and permanently so) that it would be most humane to allow them to end their lives on their own terms via medical intervention. this should never happen without extremely careful oversight, it should never happen without first exhausting all reasonable ways to try and improve that person's quality of life, and the government should never be involved in the decision. vulnerable populations should never be more likely to be approved for assisted suicide. vulnerable populations should never be coerced into pursuing assisted suicide. assisted suicide should be the last option, if it is an option at all. there may never be any system in place that can actually meet all ethical requirements for assisted suicide. there may never be any instance of assisted suicide which is above moral and ethical criticism. the history and the current state of ableism and racism have forever destroyed the capacity for assisted suicide to be discussed on neutral grounds.

naturally there are some critical differences as well (for example i don't know if the matter of patient autonomy really maps to the violent harm of others that would hypothetically justify a death sentence, and various aspects of intersectionality play at both discussions in different ways in general), but there's enough overlap that i wanted to write it out.

[technoxenoholic]

AI industry groups are urging an appeals court to block what they say is the largest copyright class action ever certified. They’ve warned that a single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic’s AI training now threatens to “financially ruin” the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement.

well…darn

[technoxenoholic]

“oh but if you’re against israel/zionism you’re an antisemite who is against the jewish people because you are against them having a safe place to live”

uhm

jewish people deserve to be safe ANYWHERE in the world, as do any other peoples/ethnicities, they’re not the only persecuted people in the world not are they the only ones who struggle with feeling safe in some places because of historical persecution.

this means they deserve to have a time when they won’t fear to live anywhere, and that also means they should not steal other people’s lands and they should not have an ethnostate.

because having an ethnostate is not the solution to this problem. and this is just an evil excuse done by evil people.

[technoxenoholic]

condensed text version of instructions:

type "about:config" in your url bar and hit enter/return

put "browser.ml.chat.enabled" into the bar at the top and make sure it's toggled to "false"

put "browser.ml.enable" into the bar at the top and make sure it's toggled to "false"

put "extensions.ml.enabled" into the bar at the top and make sure it's toggled to "false"

addendum: if any of the above do not already exist, and they have radio buttons to select what kind of config entry it should be, select the button for "boolean" and then make sure it's toggled to "false"

Mozilla, in its finite wisdom, embedded LLM bots into recent versions of Firefox for the vitally-important purpose of… naming tab groups. Now, some users are noticing CPU and power usage spikes caused by a background process called Inference.

Ugh. Reminder again for Firefox users to visit your about:config page, search for the browser.ml.chat.enabled key, and set that to false:

If yours says true then double-click it until it reads false.

Doing that turns off the AI chatbot features in Firefox, but also the stupid new LLM tab-naming feature that's rolling out.

[technoxenoholic]

i don't know how to explain to you not all disabilities can be "accommodated to the point of triviality", and that people deserve the right to complete bodily autonomy even when their decision is that they want to stop living instead of to continue to live in pain and/or suffering. did you miss the part where i said the government shouldn't have any say in the matter, or are you just trying to start shit for no reason? (rhetorical question.)

anyway, i am critical of the social model of disability because it doesn't account for the lived realities of all disabled people, so maybe you should follow your own stated dni criteria and not talk to my autoimmune-disordered ass. no amount of social reform is going to make my immune system stop trying to eat me alive.

so i've realized that my thoughts on the death penalty and my thoughts on assisted suicide are actually fairly similar.

there are people who are so cruel and violent and dangerous (and that way by choice) that it would be safer for everyone else if they were killed. this should never happen without extremely careful oversight, it should never happen before first exhausting all reasonable ways to try and convince that person to change for the better, and the government should never be involved in the decision. vulnerable populations should never be more likely to be subject to the death penalty. vulnerable populations should never be fast-tracked down the pipeline to death row. the death penalty should be the last option, if it is an option at all. there may never be any system in place that can actually meet all ethical requirements for the death penalty. there may never be any application of the death penalty which is above moral and ethical criticism. the history and the current state of racism and ableism have forever destroyed the capacity for the death penalty to be discussed on neutral grounds.

there are people whose quality if life is so poor (and permanently so) that it would be most humane to allow them to end their lives on their own terms via medical intervention. this should never happen without extremely careful oversight, it should never happen without first exhausting all reasonable ways to try and improve that person's quality of life, and the government should never be involved in the decision. vulnerable populations should never be more likely to be approved for assisted suicide. vulnerable populations should never be coerced into pursuing assisted suicide. assisted suicide should be the last option, if it is an option at all. there may never be any system in place that can actually meet all ethical requirements for assisted suicide. there may never be any instance of assisted suicide which is above moral and ethical criticism. the history and the current state of ableism and racism have forever destroyed the capacity for assisted suicide to be discussed on neutral grounds.

naturally there are some critical differences as well (for example i don't know if the matter of patient autonomy really maps to the violent harm of others that would hypothetically justify a death sentence, and various aspects of intersectionality play at both discussions in different ways in general), but there's enough overlap that i wanted to write it out.

[technoxenoholic]

I made a bad comic and now you have to look at it

[technoxenoholic]

If you're not following my bluesky, for the past few days I've been sharing communications I recieved from people working at a biodiversity database called iDigBio. They are holding a webinar on Monday the 18th to announce their plans to turn the biodiversity database into an "agentic" AI chatbot. Long story short, I engaged politely, but I just got sent a giant essay about how I'm uninformed, and the people behind this project are very smart and famous. It smells fishy to me.

I'm going to make a much nicer post with a link to the public webinar. I want people from all parts of science and the general public to tune in. Maybe ask these guys some hard questions. At the very least, people should know what is happening.

Would you all like to help? I don't exactly know what I'm doing here, but I know someone powerful wants me to keep my mouth shut, and I know biodiversity databases like iDigBio and iNat worked just fine already without AI.

[technoxenoholic]

"i want to watch something light and low on the mental bandwidth drain. since i can't watch a youtube video about speedruns or something like i usually would, i will try fruits basket"

(four episodes later)

"i am now very angry about misogyny and rape culture in shoujo"

[technoxenoholic]

so i'm watching fruits basket (the older anime, not the newer one) and boy howdy do i have some issues with it so far

[technoxenoholic]

You're not being accused of "thoughtcrime" because a real minority told you that the things you're saying are bigoted. You typing things out is not you thinking things. Those are actions you're taking. And when you're taking bigoted actions, people are going to tell you that's bigoted, and no, you are not the victim of "thoughtcrime" for being told the things you're doing are bigoted. No one on the internet is a mindreader. You're the one deciding to type out bigoted shit for everyone to see. That's not your thoughts. Those are your actions. "Thoughtcrime" isn't real. You're just literally being a bigot.

[technoxenoholic]

Sure would be a shame if thousands of people saw this...

[technoxenoholic]

i have a hypothesis. help me test it

no situational nuance -- vote based on your average day, assuming there are no technical difficulties preventing you from doing what you prefer. if you'd like to include more data, reblog and say in the tags what you voted and how old you are

note: if you use a separate speaker connected to your phone via cable or bluetooth you should still vote that you use the speakers because it's not using headphones/earbuds/similar. i just couldn't fit that into the character limit.

[technoxenoholic]

I've come to the conclusion that the way asexuality (and by extension aromanticism if we're being real) are pathologized now is similar to how homosexuality was pathologized in the 80s.

Because, if you don't know, when homosexuality was taken out of the DSM in 1974 it was immediately replaced by a new disorder called ego dsystonic homosexuality. This "condition" basically stipulated that homosexual desire was a disorder, but only if the patient was distressed by their sexuality. This compromise disorder was obviously introduced because while they couldn't go on pretending homosexuality wasn't intrinsicly disordered, they couldn't let go of that idea completely and it wasn't removed until over a decade later in 1987. But asexuality and aromanticism are still seen this way. Asexuality is still in the DSM under the name hypoactive sexual desire disorder, which stipulates that lack of sexual desire is a disorder, but only if the patient is distressed by their sexuality.

Both disorders' diagnostic criteria warn that people who are happy in their sexuality should not be considered disordered, but this only serves as tacit admission that it was never a disorder in the first place. A true disorder is a disorder regardless of how the patient feels about it. Anorexia is a disorder even if the patient is adamant that they're happy and healthy. Chronic depression is a disorder even if the patient says they're fine. And while this has been acknowledged with regards to homosexuality, it still hasn't been acknowledged with regards to asexuality.

And this perception of asexuality is imbedded within the wider culture as well. When people hear someone, be it a fictional character or a real goddamn person, say they're not attracted to anyone or interested in sex or romance, often their immediate thought is "Oh, there must be something wrong with you." Some of them will back off if you say "Actually I'm aro/ace" but some of them won't, and even for the ones who do, their first thought was still that there's something wrong with you that needs fixing. And they only thought your lack of interest was acceptable with the excuse of labelling yourself asexual/aromantic like it's a necessary hall pass.

Because fundamentally people can't let go of the idea that asexuality and aromanticism are disordered, even if they nominally support aro/aces, so they have all these excuses, like "Well maybe they're just repressed maybe they're just traumatized maybe-" yadayadayada. Because they can't simply associate lack of attraction with being aro/ace, they can only think of being aro/ace as one possible explanation. We're literally just stuck in "Oh you say you're into the same gender not into anyone? Well maybe you're traumatized or were abused as a kid or you're going through a phase or a late bloomer and you'll find the right person someday." But it's fine because if you use your hall pass then maybe they'll back off but if you don't have it because you don't know or accept you're aro/ace yet, tough luck. It's no surprise that asexuals have the same conversion therapy rate as gay people.

[technoxenoholic]

if your “✨made-up slur✨” for AI is audibly indistinguishable from an already-existing racial slur (like “wireback”) we (me and my Irish redneck family) are actually legally allowed (and mandated) to hang you from the nearest lamppost by your underwear and leave you there until the fire department eventually, maybe, notices