A longstanding conspiracy is the tale of how Facebook is listening in on your conversations, but the way it is actually serving you ads is much more unsettling.
The article makes a presumption, that the active listening is actually sending voice data as audio. Then tries to splurdge, that “acsthually it’s other data”
Then tries to splurdge, that they would require to download all “wanted” words as keywords, and it wouldn’t be feasable.
Not like you would only need some words of intent “I would like to (enter 10 s of transcription)” and just hit send.
The whole article smells of washing, and the question is directed to other people, who maybe followed the story more closely, and actually has the idea what exactly is “active listening”. Maybe someone reversed engineered it.
Ah yes, the “splurdge” part of the article, a word everyone knows as a very technical term that’s used for filling in for an inability to articulate an actual line of logic. Instead of logic, just explain that “I don’t like the conclusion of the article, so it must be wrong somehow even though I can’t explain why.”
It’s also important for people to chime in that an article must be wrong because it just “feels wrong”. Of course don’t actually provide any reasoning for it, because why would that be necessary?
Don’t forget how useful it is to ask a question, completely ignoring that the article addresses it. Don’t even bring it up in the questioning. When someone points that out, then the best strategy is to lash out at them, because they were such a big meanie by pointing out the obvious problem of not reading the article.
Lemmy communities are all about feelings, not information!
Oh, also I took a screenshot of your comment because I knew you were going to edit it.
If you read the article, you’d know. Thanks for making a comment, even though you didn’t.
The article makes a presumption, that the active listening is actually sending voice data as audio. Then tries to splurdge, that “acsthually it’s other data”
Then tries to splurdge, that they would require to download all “wanted” words as keywords, and it wouldn’t be feasable.
Not like you would only need some words of intent “I would like to (enter 10 s of transcription)” and just hit send.
The whole article smells of washing, and the question is directed to other people, who maybe followed the story more closely, and actually has the idea what exactly is “active listening”. Maybe someone reversed engineered it.
Thanks for your useless comment
Ah yes, the “splurdge” part of the article, a word everyone knows as a very technical term that’s used for filling in for an inability to articulate an actual line of logic. Instead of logic, just explain that “I don’t like the conclusion of the article, so it must be wrong somehow even though I can’t explain why.”
It’s also important for people to chime in that an article must be wrong because it just “feels wrong”. Of course don’t actually provide any reasoning for it, because why would that be necessary?
Don’t forget how useful it is to ask a question, completely ignoring that the article addresses it. Don’t even bring it up in the questioning. When someone points that out, then the best strategy is to lash out at them, because they were such a big meanie by pointing out the obvious problem of not reading the article.
Lemmy communities are all about feelings, not information!
Oh, also I took a screenshot of your comment because I knew you were going to edit it.
Edit was because it’s uncalled for. Hoped you wouldn’t have to read it. Sorry about that.