@ryper
@lemmy.caThey usually only move the rate a quarter percent at a time, so technically this is a big drop
LinkedIn's blog post on this isn't at all apologetic, just "the privacy policy already let us do this but we've updated it to be clearer." I was expecting them to say something accidentally went live early or there was some other mistake. Nope, it's all according to plan. Fuck you LinkedIn.
I deleted my account when I discovered that bullshit. LinkedIn's new opt-out AI data gobbling has me this close to deleting that account too.
Edit: Fuck it, I just saw Ars' article with LinkedIn's response. Bye bye LinkedIn account.
Kaczynski asked for clarification about how Robinson believed Stein embedded comments published over a five-year period from 2008 to 2013.
Was it a time travelling AI? Generative AI wasn't much of a thing in 2008-2013.
The terms of service have now been updated, but ordinarily that occurs well before a big change like using user data for a new purpose like this. The idea is it gives users an option to make account changes or leave the platform if they don’t like the changes. Not this time, it seems.
They should be required to delete their training data and start over after people have had a chance to opt in.
This isn't just in the US; I've got the setting in Canada and I'd assume it's in just about any country where LinkedIn is available that isn't on the very short list of exceptions.
The article ignores the big drop after Tuesday's debate; the share price "soared" to less than it closed at before the debate.