Thread

1. tolerance · 1789588420 · focus · HN ↗

   > Then came a threat. An account with a much larger following DM'd her and told her to take down the sign, or they would post about it to their local artist community. The person offered to help her find an artist to pay to make a new sign, or else they would post about it.

   > They gave her a day to "think about it."

   When this is sort of behavior that the "good guys" advance then it's hard not to expect a "bad guy" with money to show up on the scene and thwart it.

   1. ratelimitsteve · 1789588666 · focus · HN ↗

      why is talking about this with their community a threat?

      1. jrflowers · 1789589828 · focus · HN ↗

         It literally is not. You can maybe phrase it to sort of sound like a threat but “I’m going to share your public ad” is never a threat. It’s like if you angrily yell “I’m going to come to a complete stop at this upcoming stop sign!” in a threatening voice and then do that, it wasn’t a threat. Great. That’s what the sign is for. That’s what everyone wants you to do.

         1. orangedog · 1789589903 · focus · HN ↗

            In the context of how it was done, saying that they would give them a list of people and a day to think it over, it really is a threat, it's a kind of extortion.

            1. free_bip · 1789592210 · focus · HN ↗

               You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what extortion is. It's only extortion if the one extorting is the one receiving the benefit. Hiring a random artist on Fiverr would still make them happy (since the poster is not AI) but would not benefit them in any way.

               1. orangedog · 1789592335 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's not what the "threat" said. It said that they would give them a list of people, it isn't obvious that hiring some random would have made them happy. It's not even obvious whether this wasn't just a convenient way to make some money for a friend.

                  1. free_bip · 1789592816 · focus · HN ↗

                     I understand if you don't like how the person phrased it, but the goal of the DM was obviously to get the store owner to replace the AI poster. Assuming that they would have gone on a crusade because they didn't pick a "preferred artist" is pure unsupported speculation on your part.

                     1. orangedog · 1789592993 · focus · HN ↗

                        It comes across as spiteful, I don't think it is at all obvious and it isn't obvious to the store owner either.

                        We just disagree, and that's why this is the wrong approach to enacting whatever kind of change they wanted.

                     2. joquarky · 1789621427 · focus · HN ↗

                        There is arrogance behind the use of "obviously" here.
            2. jrflowers · 1789603410 · focus · HN ↗

               It is worth pointing out that the article doesn’t even imply that the business suffered any negative outcome here (ie damage or loss of sales etc.) It also doesn’t implied that the person threatened that the business might suffer any negative outcome, just that they would talk about the ad that the business made and put out for people to see and share.

               This article is very careful not to actually elaborate on what the “threat” might’ve meant because I’d imagine that baselessly speculating out loud about what they imagine it could be would open them up to getting sued.

               It’s all just uwu smol bean coffee shop chiropractor bullied by mean anti-ai mob dreck

               1. throw2836463 · 1789609693 · focus · HN ↗

                  Search for "but at what cost" and you'll see news companies do it all the time.

                  You'll find these ridiculous headlines like, "Company cures cancer, but at what cost."

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.