#digital emb | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mayonnaisevibes · 7 months

Text

OKAY I KNOW I’VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR A LOT OF CHARACTERS LATELY BUT I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL I JUST THINK HE’S COOL

#I JUST THINK HE’S COOL #the amazing digital circus #jax #I’ll fix the embed later :3

8 notes · View notes

professorbrainstorm · 2 months

Text

Introducing: Compare Da Player

Compare the internet's most popular video player styles, All in 1 place, In a simple efficient way.

Click here to try now (no sign up required)

Compare da Player

2 notes · View notes

jayaksblog · 1 year

Text

#digital art #digital emb #digital embroidery #embroidery #etsystarseller #alternative rock #rock band #nirvava #metallica #metal family

0 notes

sherrysemb · 10 months

Text

#embroidery #dst #emb #wilcom #embroiderywork #face towel #towel day #shirts #hoodies #jackets #tshirt #digitizing embroidery #embroidery designs #textile art

2 notes · View notes

technofinch · 1 year

Text

#No idea if this will embed properly (being technically a podcast episode)#digital birdsong radio hour #There are so many things to love about ofc but hot DAMN those kids can arrange and perform folk songs #Spotify

3 notes · View notes

joltrify · 2 years

Video

Some gif(t)s for some friends i haven’t talked to for a bit! (1/2)

#i am so funny my jokes are immaculate #Still a bit confused on how to embed multiple videos in one post so I’ll just split this into 2.#animation #Animation Loop #art #digital art #gift #end my suffering

6 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 4 months

Text

How lock-in hurts design

Berliners: Otherland has added a second date (Jan 28) for my book-talk after the first one sold out - book now!

If you've ever read about design, you've probably encountered the idea of "paving the desire path." A "desire path" is an erosion path created by people departing from the official walkway and taking their own route. The story goes that smart campus planners don't fight the desire paths laid down by students; they pave them, formalizing the route that their constituents have voted for with their feet.

Desire paths aren't always great (Wikipedia notes that "desire paths sometimes cut through sensitive habitats and exclusion zones, threatening wildlife and park security"), but in the context of design, a desire path is a way that users communicate with designers, creating a feedback loop between those two groups. The designers make a product, the users use it in ways that surprise the designer, and the designer integrates all that into a new revision of the product.

This method is widely heralded as a means of "co-innovating" between users and companies. Designers who practice the method are lauded for their humility, their willingness to learn from their users. Tech history is strewn with examples of successful paved desire-paths.

Take John Deere. While today the company is notorious for its war on its customers (via its opposition to right to repair), Deere was once a leader in co-innovation, dispatching roving field engineers to visit farms and learn how farmers had modified their tractors. The best of these modifications would then be worked into the next round of tractor designs, in a virtuous cycle:

https://securityledger.com/2019/03/opinion-my-grandfathers-john-deere-would-support-our-right-to-repair/

But this pattern is even more pronounced in the digital world, because it's much easier to update a digital service than it is to update all the tractors in the field, especially if that service is cloud-based, meaning you can modify the back-end everyone is instantly updated. The most celebrated example of this co-creation is Twitter, whose users created a host of its core features.

Retweets, for example, were a user creation. Users who saw something they liked on the service would type "RT" and paste the text and the link into a new tweet composition window. Same for quote-tweets: users copied the URL for a tweet and pasted it in below their own commentary. Twitter designers observed this user innovation and formalized it, turning it into part of Twitter's core feature-set.

Companies are obsessed with discovering digital desire paths. They pay fortunes for analytics software to produce maps of how their users interact with their services, run focus groups, even embed sneaky screen-recording software into their web-pages:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-dark-side-of-replay-sessions-that-record-your-every-move-online/

This relentless surveillance of users is pursued in the name of making things better for them: let us spy on you and we'll figure out where your pain-points and friction are coming from, and remove those. We all win!

But this impulse is a world apart from the humility and respect implied by co-innovation. The constant, nonconsensual observation of users has more to do with controlling users than learning from them.

That is, after all, the ethos of modern technology: the more control a company can exert over its users ,the more value it can transfer from those users to its shareholders. That's the key to enshittification, the ubiquitous platform decay that has degraded virtually all the technology we use, making it worse every day:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

When you are seeking to control users, the desire paths they create are all too frequently a means to wrestling control back from you. Take advertising: every time a service makes its ads more obnoxious and invasive, it creates an incentive for its users to search for "how do I install an ad-blocker":

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/adblocking-how-about-nah

More than half of all web-users have installed ad-blockers. It's the largest consumer boycott in human history:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

But zero app users have installed ad-blockers, because reverse-engineering an app requires that you bypass its encryption, triggering liability under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This law provides for a $500,000 fine and a 5-year prison sentence for "circumvention" of access controls:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/12/youre-holding-it-wrong/#if-dishwashers-were-iphones

Beyond that, modifying an app creates liability under copyright, trademark, patent, trade secrets, noncompete, nondisclosure and so on. It's what Jay Freeman calls "felony contempt of business model":

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

This is why services are so horny to drive you to install their app rather using their websites: they are trying to get you to do something that, given your druthers, you would prefer not to do. They want to force you to exit through the gift shop, you want to carve a desire path straight to the parking lot. Apps let them mobilize the law to literally criminalize those desire paths.

An app is just a web-page wrapped in enough IP to make it a felony to block ads in it (or do anything else that wrestles value back from a company). Apps are web-pages where everything not forbidden is mandatory.

Seen in this light, an app is a way to wage war on desire paths, to abandon the cooperative model for co-innovation in favor of the adversarial model of user control and extraction.

Corporate apologists like to claim that the proliferation of apps proves that users like them. Neoliberal economists love the idea that business as usual represents a "revealed preference." This is an intellectually unserious tautology: "you do this, so you must like it":

https://boingboing.net/2024/01/22/hp-ceo-says-customers-are-a-bad-investment-unless-they-can-be-made-to-buy-companys-drm-ink-cartridges.html

Calling an action where no alternatives are permissible a "preference" or a "choice" is a cheap trick – especially when considered against the "preferences" that reveal themselves when a real choice is possible. Take commercial surveillance: when Apple gave Ios users a choice about being spied on – a one-click opt of of app-based surveillance – 96% of users choice no spying:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/

But then Apple started spying on those very same users that had opted out of spying by Facebook and other Apple competitors:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Neoclassical economists aren't just obsessed with revealed preferences – they also love to bandy about the idea of "moral hazard": economic arrangements that tempt people to be dishonest. This is typically applied to the public ("consumers" in the contemptuous parlance of econospeak). But apps are pure moral hazard – for corporations. The ability to prohibit desire paths – and literally imprison rivals who help your users thwart those prohibitions – is too tempting for companies to resist.

The fact that the majority of web users block ads reveals a strong preference for not being spied on ("users just want relevant ads" is such an obvious lie that doesn't merit any serious discussion):

https://www.iccl.ie/news/82-of-the-irish-public-wants-big-techs-toxic-algorithms-switched-off/

Giant companies attained their scale by learning from their users, not by thwarting them. The person using technology always knows something about what they need to do and how they want to do it that the designers can never anticipate. This is especially true of people who are unlike those designers – people who live on the other side of the world, or the other side of the economic divide, or whose bodies don't work the way that the designers' bodies do:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/20/benevolent-dictators/#felony-contempt-of-business-model

Apps – and other technologies that are locked down so their users can be locked in – are the height of technological arrogance. They embody a belief that users are to be told, not heard. If a user wants to do something that the designer didn't anticipate, that's the user's fault:

https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/

Corporate enthusiasm for prohibiting you from reconfiguring the tools you use to suit your needs is a declaration of the end of history. "Sure," John Deere execs say, "we once learned from farmers by observing how they modified their tractors. But today's farmers are so much stupider and we are so much smarter that we have nothing to learn from them anymore."

Spying on your users to control them is a poor substitute asking your users their permission to learn from them. Without technological self-determination, preferences can't be revealed. Without the right to seize the means of computation, the desire paths never emerge, leaving designers in the dark about what users really want.

Our policymakers swear loyalty to "innovation" but when corporations ask for the right to decide who can innovate and how, they fall all over themselves to create laws that let companies punish users for the crime of contempt of business-model.

I'm Kickstarting the audiobook for The Bezzle, the sequel to Red Team Blues, narrated by @wilwheaton! You can pre-order the audiobook and ebook, DRM free, as well as the hardcover, signed or unsigned. There's also bundles with Red Team Blues in ebook, audio or paperback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/24/everything-not-mandatory/#is-prohibited

Image: Belem (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Desire_path_%2819811581366%29.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #desire paths #design #drm #everything not mandatory is prohibited #apps #ip #innovation #user innovation #technological self-determination #john deere #twitter #felony contempt of business model

3K notes · View notes

pillowfort-social · 3 months

Text

Generative AI Policy (February 9, 2024)

As of February 9, 2024, we are updating our Terms of Service to prohibit the following content:

Images created through the use of generative AI programs such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and Dall-E.

This post explains what that means for you. We know it’s impossible to remove all images created by Generative AI on Pillowfort. The goal of this new policy, however, is to send a clear message that we are against the normalization of commercializing and distributing images created by Generative AI. Pillowfort stands in full support of all creatives who make Pillowfort their home. Disclaimer: The following policy was shaped in collaboration with Pillowfort Staff and international university researchers. We are aware that Artificial Intelligence is a rapidly evolving environment. This policy may require revisions in the future to adapt to the changing landscape of Generative AI.

Why is Generative AI Banned on Pillowfort?

Our Terms of Service already prohibits copyright violations, which includes reposting other people’s artwork to Pillowfort without the artist’s permission; and because of how Generative AI draws on a database of images and text that were taken without consent from artists or writers, all Generative AI content can be considered in violation of this rule. We also had an overwhelming response from our user base urging us to take action on prohibiting Generative AI on our platform.

How does Pillowfort define Generative AI?

As of February 9, 2024 we define Generative AI as online tools for producing material based on large data collection that is often gathered without consent or notification from the original creators.

Generative AI tools do not require skill on behalf of the user and effectively replace them in the creative process (ie - little direction or decision making taken directly from the user). Tools that assist creativity don't replace the user. This means the user can still improve their skills and refine over time.

For example: If you ask a Generative AI tool to add a lighthouse to an image, the image of a lighthouse appears in a completed state. Whereas if you used an assistive drawing tool to add a lighthouse to an image, the user decides the tools used to contribute to the creation process and how to apply them.

Examples of Tools Not Allowed on Pillowfort: Adobe Firefly* Dall-E GPT-4 Jasper Chat Lensa Midjourney Stable Diffusion Synthesia

Example of Tools Still Allowed on Pillowfort:

AI Assistant Tools (ie: Google Translate, Grammarly) VTuber Tools (ie: Live3D, Restream, VRChat) Digital Audio Editors (ie: Audacity, Garage Band) Poser & Reference Tools (ie: Poser, Blender) Graphic & Image Editors (ie: Canva, Adobe Photoshop*, Procreate, Medibang, automatic filters from phone cameras)

*While Adobe software such as Adobe Photoshop is not considered Generative AI, Adobe Firefly is fully integrated in various Adobe software and falls under our definition of Generative AI. The use of Adobe Photoshop is allowed on Pillowfort. The creation of an image in Adobe Photoshop using Adobe Firefly would be prohibited on Pillowfort.

Can I use ethical generators?

Due to the evolving nature of Generative AI, ethical generators are not an exception.

Can I still talk about AI?

Yes! Posts, Comments, and User Communities discussing AI are still allowed on Pillowfort.

Can I link to or embed websites, articles, or social media posts containing Generative AI?

Yes. We do ask that you properly tag your post as “AI” and “Artificial Intelligence.”

Can I advertise the sale of digital or virtual goods containing Generative AI?

No. Offsite Advertising of the sale of goods (digital and physical) containing Generative AI on Pillowfort is prohibited.

How can I tell if a software I use contains Generative AI?

A general rule of thumb as a first step is you can try testing the software by turning off internet access and seeing if the tool still works. If the software says it needs to be online there’s a chance it’s using Generative AI and needs to be explored further.

You are also always welcome to contact us at [email protected] if you’re still unsure.

How will this policy be enforced/detected?

Our Team has decided we are NOT using AI-based automated detection tools due to how often they provide false positives and other issues. We are applying a suite of methods sourced from international universities responding to moderating material potentially sourced from Generative AI instead.

How do I report content containing Generative AI Material?

If you are concerned about post(s) featuring Generative AI material, please flag the post for our Site Moderation Team to conduct a thorough investigation. As a reminder, Pillowfort’s existing policy regarding callout posts applies here and harassment / brigading / etc will not be tolerated.

Any questions or clarifications regarding our Generative AI Policy can be sent to [email protected].

#pillowfort.social #pifo #pillowfort.soc #pfstaffalert #tos #policy #ai #please share #february 2024

2K notes · View notes