Source: https://xcancel.com/vxunderground/status/2032600868005310638#m

Yeah, so basically the current prevailing schizo internet theory is that AI nerds have destroyed the internet and created infinite spam.

The advertisement goons are now incapable of determining who is a bot and who is an actual human. The advertisement goons no longer want to pay as much to social media networks.

Social media networks, in full blown panic of losing potential revenue, decided to lobby governments saying “we gotta protect the kids! ID everyone to protect the kids from pedophiles!”.

The social media networks know this doesn’t really protect kids. But, it does two things (and a third accidentally).

  1. They now can identify who is human and who is AI slop machine, or enough to appease the advertisement goons

  2. Advertising to children is a general no-no from politicians, or something, so with ID verification they can say with confidence they’re not advertising to children because it’s been ID verification. Basically, they can weed out the children and focus on advertising to adults

  3. The feds can now tell who is human and who is AI slop. This inadvertently helps them with tracking people and serving fresh daily dumps of propaganda, or whatever they want to do.

It’s a win-win-win for advertisers, social media networks, the government, and any business which does data collections.

It fucks over everyone else.

Chat, I’m not going to lie to you. This is an extremely good conspiracy schizo theory and I unironically believe it.

  • eli@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Want a real schizo theory?

    People are going to use the ID verification thing to see which accounts are child accounts, pull all details for those accounts and make a database of children’s accounts, and then sell that information to bad actors who plan to traffic children.

  • bitwolf@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    If of wasn’t Metas involvement, I was thinking it would be the first stab at a social credit system.

    Is definitely a ploy to identify us all and certainly not to protect children.

  • No1@aussie.zone
    0·
    3 months ago

    This is just the beginning.

    You think it’s just about ID?

    Politicians in both the UK and Australia have spoken about banning VPNs, because VPNs have been used to avoid age verification in those countries.

    • Kurroth@aussie.zone
      0·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think anyone relevant in Australia has yet suggested banning VPNs. Too much gov infrastructure runs on them.

      • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Well, clearly the government would be an exception, there are always “authorized uses” for every banned thing.

    • daannii@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Which is stupid. Kids aren’t using vpns. Most good ones cost money. And kids aren’t very tech savvy these days.

      Most grow up with phones and tablets only. They don’t even know how to use a keyboard or a PC.

      • eleitl@lemmy.zip
        0·
        3 months ago

        Hello, this was never about kids. Do you routinely believe what politicians are telling you?

        • daannii@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          That’s my point. Kids aren’t even at risk of circumventing age restrictions so requiring IDs or banning VPNs is targeting adults privacy. Not protecting kids.

    • eleitl@lemmy.zip
      0·
      3 months ago

      If you want to see where we’re going, look no farther than Russia’s Internet. Which is currently much worse than China’s.

      So be prepared for your service to be degraded to unusability.

  • IratePirate@feddit.org
    0·
    3 months ago

    The advertisement goons are now incapable of determining who is a bot and who is an actual human.

    Bullshit. Social networks track the living shit out of everyone and know exactly what’s human traffic and what isn’t. Device identifiers (user agent, IP ranges, browser fingerprint, (lack of) ad id, etc.) and behavioral patterns (including purchase history) differ wildly.

    Advertising to children is a general no-no from politicians, or something,

    Bullshit. Even advertising to kids were outlawed (it isn’t), politicians could be just bought off by advertisers to turn a blind eye. This is particularly true for the land of their formerly free and home of the formerly brave where corruption is now an above-the-counter item, practiced out in the open by the president himself.

    • kieron115@startrek.websiteEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Bullshit. Social networks track the living shit out of everyone and know exactly what’s human traffic and what isn’t. Device identifiers (user agent, IP ranges, browser fingerprint, (lack of) ad id, etc.) and behavioral patterns (including purchase history) differ wildly.

      https://github.com/xvzc/SpoofDPI plus a browser fingerprinting blocker.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      Social networks track the living shit out of everyone and know exactly what’s human traffic and what isn’t.

      Over 80% of Twitter’s accounts are actually bots

      The difference now is that paying advertisers are demanding proof that their adverts are reaching humans, not bots.

      Why are you given adverts for products you’ve just bought? So that paying advertisers can be tricked by the data into thinking their advert resulted in a sale.

  • null@lemmy.orgEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    It makes more sense than it doesn’t.

    Maybe not as shadow cabal type of collusion, but as the path of least resistance that all these entities would find themselves going down independently… at the same time.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    0·
    3 months ago

    I like how they call everything conspiracy theories these days. Yeah, nothing to see here, just wanna protect children… :)

    • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      Agree because it’s a real mental illness that some people are tornented with, and that word should not be thrown around playfully.

      The word I didn’t love from OOP was “unironically.” I truly don’t love that word.

      • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        Hazarding a guess that they feel OP is using schizo as a shorthand reference for crazy/delusional, given the context is Internet conspiracy theories. They possibly feel that it is being used as a perjorative which disrespects folks who struggle with schizophrenia. In essence, calling something you find crazy “schizo” is the same as calling something you find dumb “retarded”.

        I don’t have a dog in the fight one way or the other, but, in the absence of their reply, that’s my assumption.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          3 months ago

          This is a great answer. It is worth noting that the word “dumb” used to literally mean what we now say is “non-verbal”. Funny how language changes.

          See also: “lame”.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        Schizophrenia is a real, serious disease. It means a specific diagnosis that isn’t just 🤪

  • collapse_already@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    The bad news for the AI goons is that the capitalists have squeezed us so hard that we no longer have any money to spend on the products we’re programmed to lust after. Not sure what the end game is.

  • FukOui@lemmy.zip
    0·
    3 months ago

    Plausible considering it’s been shown that meta is the one responsible for lobbying this shit

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    This is good r/conspiracy (I mean on OG reddit, where people would ironically make up conspiracies (like birds aren’t real (which they aren’t, but it was first discovered on r/conspiracy unironically [wake up sheeple]))) material.

    Like any good conspiracy, mixing factual statements into the conspiracy makes the bullshit taste better… so to speak.