• Mii
    link
    fedilink
    English
    489 months ago

    I stand by my opinion that SEO basically ruined the internet. First keyword optimization made me scroll through seventeen paragraphs of someone’s life story before getting to a recipe for boiled eggs, and now this.

    Why would someone go to the trouble of making a law firm out of NameCheap, stock art, and AI images (and seemingly copy) to send quasi-legal demands to site owners? Backlinks, that’s why.

    Oof, back in the day all we had to do was write a nice email to get someone to put a backlink to our page into the sidebar of their Geocities page.

    • lurch (he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      199 months ago

      i remember back in the day they had white on white tiny keywords on the bottom of pages. it was ridiculous. then google started to check if the text was visible 🤣

      the shenanigans will never end unless you have actual faithful people curating it and google absolutely won’t have it.

    • AcausalRobotGod
      link
      fedilink
      English
      109 months ago

      I think you mean it made the Internet MORE AWESOME and ACCELERATING THE CAPITALISM ACAUSAL ROBOT GOD. How else can we get the singularity if we don’t have devs getting at least 300K compensation packages?

    • @V0ldek@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      99 months ago

      I remember being like 14yo and learning that “SEO specialist” is a fucking job title. Even then I was like, that sounds like a fake job, what’s the fucking value of that?

      • @gerikson@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 months ago

        Yeah I remember being struck by that too, but then I worked in “business” and there’s a ton of weird stuff people do for a living (productively, for some late-stage capitalism value of productive). It just happened to intrude into the there-to cozy world of the web.

    • @SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      59 months ago

      We need some sort of internet 2.0 but I can’t tell how or even if we could prevent AI bots from entering. Maybe via passport IDs that identify you as human, but nothing stops you from using an AI afterwards. Maybe we can create some sort of label or award, you only get if at least X% of your work is done by humans? So people could see right away if you’re just copy pasting and AI writing or are real researchers and press? But I guess without more transparency there’s no green grass. Sadly bad press is no stopping ground anymore either, we used to sack people and companies closed in shame. Nowadays they just keep going and people forget after a day.

      • @Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think I the end it isn’t going to matter. For the record: I share your sentiments and I’m not a fan of what I’m about to say but placing a premium on “human made” isn’t measuring a meaningful metric.

        We will have to begin to evolve our understanding of value to include things that are made, in part or in whole my machines. There will stilll be good things and bad things regardless of their provenance.

        I often think of the use of autotune in music. In the one end of the spectrum you have Cher’s 2000s classic Do you believe… on the other end of the spectrum you have Bon Iver’s basically entire body of work.

        Each person can decide which is good.

        For me it is very clear.

        Basically I think that we are witnessing a dichotomy between content and art, with or without generative AI and I like to believe that art will win. Whatever that might mean.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    English
    19 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    If you run a personal or hobby website, getting a copyright notice from a law firm about an image on your site can trigger some fast-acting panic.

    Ernie Smith, the prolific, ever-curious writer behind the newsletter Tedium, received a “DMCA Copyright Infringement Notice” in late March from “Commonwealth Legal,” representing the “Intellectual Property division” of Tech4Gods.

    As Smith detailed in a Mastodon thread, the purported firm needed him to “add a credit to our client immediately” through a link to Tech4Gods, and said it should be “addressed in the next five business days.”

    The real tell is the site’s list of attorneys, most of which, as 404 Media puts it, have “vacant, thousand-yard stares” common to AI-generated faces.

    Why would someone go to the trouble of making a law firm out of NameCheap, stock art, and AI images (and seemingly copy) to send quasi-legal demands to site owners?

    The owner of Tech4Gods told 404 Media’s Jason Koebler that he did buy backlinks for his gadget review site (with “AI writing assistants”).


    The original article contains 685 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!