Month: March 2023

Best Foldable Phones in 2023: Samsung Galaxy Z Fold, Z Flip, Moto Razr – CNET

Foldable phones might be rare, but there are some great options you can buy right now.

Foldable phones might be rare, but there are some great options you can buy right now.

Read More 

Inside the Deepfake Porn Economy

The nonconsensual deepfake economy has remained largely out of sight, but it’s easily accessible, and some creators can accept major credit cards. From a report: Digitally edited pornographic videos featuring the faces of hundreds of unconsenting women are attracting tens of millions of visitors on websites, one of which can be found at the top of Google search results. The people who create the videos charge as little as $5 to download thousands of clips featuring the faces of celebrities, and they accept payment via Visa, Mastercard and cryptocurrency. While such videos, often called deepfakes, have existed online for years, advances in artificial intelligence and the growing availability of the technology have made it easier — and more lucrative — to make nonconsensual sexually explicit material.

An NBC News review of two of the largest websites that host sexually explicit deepfake videos found that they were easily accessible through Google and that creators on the websites also used the online chat platform Discord to advertise videos for sale and the creation of custom videos. The deepfakes are created using AI software that can take an existing video and seamlessly replace one person’s face with another’s, even mirroring facial expressions. Some lighthearted deepfake videos of celebrities have gone viral, but the most common use is for sexually explicit videos. According to Sensity, an Amsterdam-based company that detects and monitors AI-developed synthetic media for industries like banking and fintech, 96% of deepfakes are sexually explicit and feature women who didn’t consent to the creation of the content. Most deepfake videos are of female celebrities, but creators now also offer to make videos of anyone. A creator offered on Discord to make a 5-minute deepfake of a “personal girl,” meaning anyone with fewer than 2 million Instagram followers, for $65.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The nonconsensual deepfake economy has remained largely out of sight, but it’s easily accessible, and some creators can accept major credit cards. From a report: Digitally edited pornographic videos featuring the faces of hundreds of unconsenting women are attracting tens of millions of visitors on websites, one of which can be found at the top of Google search results. The people who create the videos charge as little as $5 to download thousands of clips featuring the faces of celebrities, and they accept payment via Visa, Mastercard and cryptocurrency. While such videos, often called deepfakes, have existed online for years, advances in artificial intelligence and the growing availability of the technology have made it easier — and more lucrative — to make nonconsensual sexually explicit material.

An NBC News review of two of the largest websites that host sexually explicit deepfake videos found that they were easily accessible through Google and that creators on the websites also used the online chat platform Discord to advertise videos for sale and the creation of custom videos. The deepfakes are created using AI software that can take an existing video and seamlessly replace one person’s face with another’s, even mirroring facial expressions. Some lighthearted deepfake videos of celebrities have gone viral, but the most common use is for sexually explicit videos. According to Sensity, an Amsterdam-based company that detects and monitors AI-developed synthetic media for industries like banking and fintech, 96% of deepfakes are sexually explicit and feature women who didn’t consent to the creation of the content. Most deepfake videos are of female celebrities, but creators now also offer to make videos of anyone. A creator offered on Discord to make a 5-minute deepfake of a “personal girl,” meaning anyone with fewer than 2 million Instagram followers, for $65.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read More 

Google Assistant might be doomed: Division “reorganizes” to focus on Bard

The Google Assistant makes no money and hasn’t released hardware in two years.

Enlarge / The lettering “Hey Google” on the Google pavilion at the CES consumer electronics show in Las Vegas in 2018. These words activate Google Assistant, Google’s virtual personal assistant. (credit: Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance)

Is the Google Assistant doomed? The evidence is starting to pile up that the division is going down the tubes. The latest is news from CNBC’s Jennifer Elias that says the Google Assistant division has been “reshuffled” to “heavily prioritize” Bard over the Google Assistant. It all sounds like the team is being reassigned.

We’ll get into the report details in a minute, but first a quick recap of the past two years of what the Assistant has gone through under Google:

The Google Assistant saw eight major speaker/smart display hardware releases in five years from 2016-2021, but the hardware releases seem to have stopped. The last Assistant hardware release was in March 2021. That was two full years ago.
2022 saw Google remove Assistant support from two in-house product lines: Nest Wi-Fi and Fitbit wearables.
2022 also saw a report from The Information that said Google wanted to “invest less in developing its Google Assistant voice-assisted search for cars and for devices not made by Google.”
The Google Assistant’s driving mode was shut down in 2022.
The Google Assistant’s “Duplex on the web” feature was also shut down in 2022.
One of the Google Assistant’s core unique features, Reminders, is being shut down in favor of Google Task Reminders soon.
The Google Assistant has never made money. The hardware is sold at cost, it doesn’t have ads, and nobody pays a monthly fee to use the Assistant. There’s also the significant server cost to process all those voice commands, though some newer devices have moved to on-device processing in a stealthy cost-cutting move. The Assistant’s biggest competitor, Amazon Alexa, is in the same boat and loses $10 billion a year.

Each one of those developments could maybe be dismissed individually, but together they start to paint the familiar picture of a looming Google shutdown.

Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read More 

Elon Musk Tried to Meet With F.T.C. Chair About Twitter, but Was Rebuffed

Mr. Musk requested a meeting with Lina Khan, the chair of the F.T.C., which has been investigating Twitter’s privacy and data practices.

Mr. Musk requested a meeting with Lina Khan, the chair of the F.T.C., which has been investigating Twitter’s privacy and data practices.

Read More 

Amazon sues sellers for issuing bogus takedown requests on competitors

Illustration: Alex Castro / The Verge

Amazon has filed three lawsuits against groups that it claims were abusing its takedown system by filing thousands of illegitimate copyright complaints against other products in a bid to get people to buy their merchandise instead. In an announcement on Thursday, the company calls the lawsuits a “new offensive against bad actors.”
According to the lawsuits (which you can read here, here, and here), the alleged bad actors didn’t just file fake complaints and then sit back and wait to see if they worked. Amazon says the parties also “created fake, disposable websites, with product images scraped from the Amazon store” and tried to use them as evidence that they were the legitimate copyright holders. There is a sort of dark humor here — it takes an impressive level of audacity to literally copy an image and then present it as evidence that the person you copied it from is stealing from you.
Amazon says the alleged fraudsters were involved in a web of fake sites and trademarks
Amazon accuses one defendant, which was registered under the name “Sidesk,” of taking things even further. The complaint says it used a “fraudulent” trademark application to get into the Amazon Brand Registry program, which lets companies search for and manage scans of fraudulent listings that copy their products. Amazon claims the US Patent and Trademark Office had canceled the trademark application but that Sidesk used it anyway.
The rabbit hole goes even deeper with Sidesk. That trademark application was allegedly filed by a company called Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd., which the Patent and Trademark Office ended up sanctioning for “filing over 15,800 trademark applications using false, fictitious, or fraudulent domicile information and/or credentials,” according to the lawsuit.
According to Amazon’s lawsuits, Sidesk was also by far the worst offender for filing takedown requests, with around 3,850. The others, Dhuog and Vivcic, allegedly filed 229 and 59, respectively, in the course of a few months. According to the suits, they were occasionally successful. “In limited circumstances, Defendants’ scheme worked and materials related to some product listings were temporarily taken down from the Amazon Store in response to Defendants’ invalid complaints.”
Amazon’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA) system obviously has legitimate uses — if someone were to try selling a shirt with Mickey Mouse on it, Disney would have the legal right to take it down since it owns the copyright on the character (for now). But as these cases show, it can be difficult to walk the line between making it easy for legitimate claimants to get products taken down and creating a system that bad actors can abuse. Amazon says it “has a number of robust protections in place to detect and stop bad actors from attempting to submit fake and abusive notices of infringement,” but nothing is perfect.
It’s not just an Amazon problem, though. YouTubers have long complained that the site’s copyright claiming system lets companies and scammers file illegitimate claims to extort a creator or take their ad revenue, often (but not always) without any real consequences. If Amazon’s suits are successful, they may act as a deterrent for people looking to abuse its systems.

Illustration: Alex Castro / The Verge

Amazon has filed three lawsuits against groups that it claims were abusing its takedown system by filing thousands of illegitimate copyright complaints against other products in a bid to get people to buy their merchandise instead. In an announcement on Thursday, the company calls the lawsuits a “new offensive against bad actors.”

According to the lawsuits (which you can read here, here, and here), the alleged bad actors didn’t just file fake complaints and then sit back and wait to see if they worked. Amazon says the parties also “created fake, disposable websites, with product images scraped from the Amazon store” and tried to use them as evidence that they were the legitimate copyright holders. There is a sort of dark humor here — it takes an impressive level of audacity to literally copy an image and then present it as evidence that the person you copied it from is stealing from you.

Amazon says the alleged fraudsters were involved in a web of fake sites and trademarks

Amazon accuses one defendant, which was registered under the name “Sidesk,” of taking things even further. The complaint says it used a “fraudulent” trademark application to get into the Amazon Brand Registry program, which lets companies search for and manage scans of fraudulent listings that copy their products. Amazon claims the US Patent and Trademark Office had canceled the trademark application but that Sidesk used it anyway.

The rabbit hole goes even deeper with Sidesk. That trademark application was allegedly filed by a company called Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd., which the Patent and Trademark Office ended up sanctioning for “filing over 15,800 trademark applications using false, fictitious, or fraudulent domicile information and/or credentials,” according to the lawsuit.

According to Amazon’s lawsuits, Sidesk was also by far the worst offender for filing takedown requests, with around 3,850. The others, Dhuog and Vivcic, allegedly filed 229 and 59, respectively, in the course of a few months. According to the suits, they were occasionally successful. “In limited circumstances, Defendants’ scheme worked and materials related to some product listings were temporarily taken down from the Amazon Store in response to Defendants’ invalid complaints.”

Amazon’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA) system obviously has legitimate uses — if someone were to try selling a shirt with Mickey Mouse on it, Disney would have the legal right to take it down since it owns the copyright on the character (for now). But as these cases show, it can be difficult to walk the line between making it easy for legitimate claimants to get products taken down and creating a system that bad actors can abuse. Amazon says it “has a number of robust protections in place to detect and stop bad actors from attempting to submit fake and abusive notices of infringement,” but nothing is perfect.

It’s not just an Amazon problem, though. YouTubers have long complained that the site’s copyright claiming system lets companies and scammers file illegitimate claims to extort a creator or take their ad revenue, often (but not always) without any real consequences. If Amazon’s suits are successful, they may act as a deterrent for people looking to abuse its systems.

Read More 

Netflix’s Cheaper Ad-Supported Plan Now Available on Apple TV

Netflix this week brought its more affordable ad-supported plan to the Apple TV, which means subscribers who have the cheaper plan can now watch content through their set-top boxes from Apple.

When Netflix launched its ad-supported plan back in November, it did not work on the ‌Apple TV‌. Netflix at the time said that support for the plan would be “coming soon,” with access to Netflix on the ‌Apple TV‌ limited to the more expensive Basic, Standard, and Premium plans.

As noted by TechCrunch, a Reddit user noticed that the Basic with Ads plan was available on the latest version of the Netflix app on the ‌Apple TV‌, and Netflix confirmed that the ad-supported tier is now on tvOS.

The Netflix Basic with Ads plan is priced at $6.99 per month, $3 cheaper than the Basic $9.99 per month plan with no ads. The ads range in length from 15 to 30 seconds, and there are four to five minutes of ads per hour.Tag: Netflix

This article, “Netflix’s Cheaper Ad-Supported Plan Now Available on Apple TV” first appeared on MacRumors.comDiscuss this article in our forums

Netflix this week brought its more affordable ad-supported plan to the Apple TV, which means subscribers who have the cheaper plan can now watch content through their set-top boxes from Apple.

When Netflix launched its ad-supported plan back in November, it did not work on the ‌Apple TV‌. Netflix at the time said that support for the plan would be “coming soon,” with access to Netflix on the ‌Apple TV‌ limited to the more expensive Basic, Standard, and Premium plans.

As noted by TechCrunch, a Reddit user noticed that the Basic with Ads plan was available on the latest version of the Netflix app on the ‌Apple TV‌, and Netflix confirmed that the ad-supported tier is now on tvOS.

The Netflix Basic with Ads plan is priced at $6.99 per month, $3 cheaper than the Basic $9.99 per month plan with no ads. The ads range in length from 15 to 30 seconds, and there are four to five minutes of ads per hour.

Tag: Netflix

This article, “Netflix’s Cheaper Ad-Supported Plan Now Available on Apple TV” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Read More 

Scroll to top
Generated by Feedzy