Discord isn’t a social media. With platforms like facebook, you’re still paying for all your storage, just not with money. There’s ads all over the platform, and all your content is data mined to be sold to advertisers. Discord doesn’t data mine (to my knowledge) OR run ads. Would you prefer a higher limit at the cost of having ads all over the interface? The AWS bill has to get paid somehow, nothing is free.

This was my core point. I don’t consider a business raising prices or gating features as a direct result of those features increasing their cost as “enshittification”. Stickers being paid, custom emojis, etc, that doesn’t cost Discord anything to provide, making that paid is enshittification; But if the feature itself costs the business actual money to provide, does everyone just expect them to eat that cost forever, in a lot of cases for absolutely no revenue from the users?

Calling out businesses for not giving stuff that costs them money away for free just, doesn’t fundamentally make sense to me. Why is it just expected of Discord that they pay to store all your large files? A lot of “freemium” services like GMail recoup some of that money by mining your email for data that it can sell to advertisers, or eating the cost in an attempt to lock you into an ecosystem where you’ll spend money. Storing files on Discord is neither of those things.

Don’t get me wrong, a lot of services are enshittifying, and making their services worse so you spend more money with them— but adjusting your quotas and pricing to reflect your real world cost of business is not that. To frame it as though you are entitled to free compute and resources from companies that don’t owe you anything comes off as just that, entitled. The cloud isn’t free. If you want to use a service, you should pay for it if you can.

I don’t see this as enshittification. It’s a real thing that’s happening, but raw storage is expensive. They pay for it directly. Unlike artificially limiting features that are “free” to them, this genuinely isn’t, it’s not even really super discounted for them on the backend. They’re likely just paying for a series of S3 buckets.

This news is from over a month ago, and conditions have materially and dramatically changed since it’s publication. Regardless of the intent, posting this without noting a critical detail (it’s age) is at best incredibly misleading, and at worst intentionally subversive.

I van totally believe that it detects AI generated content 99% of the time, that’s trivial. What I really wanna know is the false positive rate. If I write a program that flags everything, it’d have a 100% hit rate. It’d also however have a crazy high false positive rate.

Hey so most of us are against this nonsense, republicans haven’t won the popular vote in well over a decade. We don’t really have a say in the matter, and haven’t in a pretty long time.

Autopilot maintains altitude and bearing between waypoints in the sky, and in some (ideal) situations can automatically land the aircraft. In terms of piloting an aircraft, it can handle the middle of the journey entirely autonomously, and even sometimes the end (landing).

Autopilot (the Telsa feature) is not rated to drive the car autonomously, requires constant human supervision, and can automatically disengage at any time. Despite being sold as an “autonomous driver”, it cannot function as one, like autopilot on a plane can. It is clearly using the autopilot feature of an aircraft to imply that the car can pilot itself through at least the middle of the journey without direct supervision (which it can’t). That is misrepresentation.

Investigate it? The dude literally named it “autopilot”, what is there to investigate, they market this explicitly in their advertising.