Everybody privately shit-talks everybody. The phone always listens to it and records it. A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts. Everybody in the world suddenly gets a thousand shit-talking texts from their family, friends and associates. Society dissolves.
You must log in or register to comment.
Everybody privately shit-talks everybody
That’s not the case 😕
Yes it is.
Perhaps you’re in a not so lovely social bubble?
Perhaps you are in denial.
I mean…
I know for a fact it is something I don’t do. I even tell people off and get mad when someone tries to engage in it with me. As such, I know that when you say “everybody”, I am sure, for a fact, 100%, that you’re wrong.
I don’t need to prove that no-one does it. I know some people do it… Though the ones I know to do it, I either ask they improve their behavior, or I stop interacting with them.
You can’t prove that I do it. You can only refuse to believe me… But you’d still be wrong.
And if you’re wondering how I deal with it when I have a problem with someone, since I don’t complain about it to someone else… That’s simple. I carefully plan out how to tell the person I have a problem with about it, to their face. Thats the only way the problem can be solved and our relationship improved.
As far as I can tell, that’s how every mature adult I know functions.
That’s a heartwarming yet completely irrelevant point. We should discuss my point instead.
It’s not irrelevant, because it directly proves you wrong. You only consider it irrelevant because it contradicts your narrative.
Insightful and psychic. You must be a whiz at a Sudoku.
Cool.
You might want to retract your refutation of @iii@mander.xyz comment then, since it isn’t a discussion you’re interested in having.
I’ll leave it. It’s a fine example of evasive squirming, to which I referred elsewhere in this thread.
It only takes one example to refute a universal claim.
Not really.
Oooh, edgy. Few problems:
List of logical fallacies
- Hasty Generalization
“Everybody privately shit-talks everybody.” Assumes a universal truth based on limited or anecdotal experience. Not everyone engages in this behavior
- False Premise
“The phone always listens to it and records it.” This is factually untrue for most users and makes the argument invalid from the start. The conclusion based on this premise (a hack turning that into texts) relies on a false understanding of technology.
- Slippery Slope (Implied)
“A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts.”
Implied assumption: this will definitely go viral and cause massive disruption. It assumes a cascade of dramatic consequences without evidence.
- Appeal to Cynicism
“Everybody privately shit-talks everybody.” Uses an exaggeratedly negative view of human nature as a foundation to justify or normalize antisocial behavior.
- Moral Equivalence
By implying that since everyone does it, exposing it via a viral hack is just revealing the “truth” and therefore not really unethical, it downplays the maliciousness of the hypothetical hack.
Basically, your entire premise is a heap of logical fallacy and edgelord cringe.
I got BINGO! What do I win?
Your criticisms are very weak. Sorry.
Instead of looking for ways to defeat me you should just go with it. For example you could consider what the societal upheaval would look like. How would we recover. What growth would it inspire etc.
I mean, really. What difference to my point would 99% shit-talkers vs 100% make?
No one is looking to “defeat” you.
Accepting and internalising it when someone explains you’re wrong about something, results in two people being right about something, not a “winner” and a “loser”.
Changing your mind is not losing.
We can still have a discussion about your hypothetical, after.
But you’ve walked in with a bunch of fallacies and in response to having them corrected, turned so abrasive, that your behaviour and world view is now the only thing anyone is interested in talking about.
Look how you’ve sweetened. A minute ago it was accusations of edgelordyness, antisocialness and unethicality. Hot and cold.
What is your point, in a nutshell?
Or… two clearly different people?
You’re not very smart, are you? 😂
Your shower thought is edgelord cringe and the fact that you can’t swallow that hit to your ego is, well, yeah. We see you.
Jesus christ. Suit yourself.
Tagged as edgelord laughingstock.
Woah, that’s a feature I did use until today! TIL about tagging Lemmy users.
I’m assuming you thought I was @foggy@lemmy.world
Lmao fucking edgelord
What is your problem?
I present a perfectly tasty and chewable bit of speculation and you people just react with… the usual.
Nevermind.
I’m fairly certain they are commenting on your behaviour in this thread overrall.
Lol. You are shameless. But you are one of the few to reply with any substance (not this reply tho). So stick with the substance.
You’re actively doing the equivalent of a kid plugging their ears and singing loudly in order to drown out something someone is telling them.
And in doing so, you are by far the worst offender in this thread, when it comes to off-topic nonsense. Your comebacks are genuinely embarrasing, and the attention they have drawn eclipse whatever you wanted the point to be.
Trying to explain that to you, so you might comprehend the parts of what you are being told that are worth hearing, and thereby become capable of choosing to do better, has far more substance than your initial hypothetical.
Your most productive course of action, would be to take what you’ve been told, and re-posting the thread with better wording.
Something along the lines of “what would happen if a piece of malware used our devices to record what everyone says in private, and made it public”.
You started with a premise so far from reality, (that there would be something bad to reveal about everyone) that people ignored your opener in favor of discussing its incongruence with reality.
This is facile drivel. Really. Go back to discussing the substance. How society would react etc.
Unfortunately, we do not have the authority to decide what part of our activity people choose to address in reply to us.
That’s up to everyone else. I can only hope you’ll actually read what I write. I can’t make you.
But the responses and votes you’ve received, should make it more than clear to you, what you should take home and think about from this post of yours.
My god man, stop inhaling your own farts, it’s killing braincells. Ground yourself in the observable.
OP is telling on themselves here
I will never understand trolls
So basically the plot of the South Park troll trace arc in season 20.
community did it too
Hmm. I’m not familiar. I’ll check it out. Thanks.
Your phone isn’t recording you, you’re just more predictable than you think.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/01/07/phone-listening-target-ads-iphone-siri/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanpettijohn/2019/09/03/of-course-your-phone-is-listening-to-you/
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/29/is-my-phone-listening-to-me-we-ask-the-expert
Your phone is in fact listening. Thats proven by a whistleblower from apple. But it doesnt need to, youre correct on that point.
Darn, someone else beat me to it, but as they said, this was largely debunked. We already knew that data is collected every time you say “Siri”. That’s not the same as constant and passive data collection without activation.
They absolutely did not debunk that. Its a fact and it stays that.
That’s why you stopped replying to the other user lol
Ah, so you’re able to read my intentions. Good for you. I bet you’re very successful in business then.
Jokes aside. I agreed with their point that there are many reasons to be vigilant, independent from the proven fact that phones are listening.
You on the other hand are just trying to pile on something you somehow disagree with. Maybe you wanna rethink that attitude. Good bye.
Ah, so you’re downvote farming
proven by a whistleblower from apple
Assuming you have an iPhone. And even then, the whistleblower you’re referencing was part of a team who reviewed utterances by users with the “Hey Siri” wake word feature enabled. If you had Siri disabled entirely or had the wake word feature disabled, you weren’t impacted at all.
This may have been limited to impacting only users who also had some option like “Improve Siri and Dictation” enabled, but it’s not clear. Today, the Privacy Policy explicitly says that Apple can have employees review your interactions with Siri and Dictation (my understanding is the reason for the settlement is that they were not explicit that human review was occurring). I strongly recommend disabling that setting, particularly if you have a wake word enabled.
If you have wake words enabled on your phone or device, your phone has to listen to be able to react to them. At that point, of course the phone is listening. Whether it’s sending the info back somewhere is a different story, and there isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of that any major phone company does this.
Exactly. The interesting part is thats what we know. As has been proven countless times by apple and other huge companies. There is always more sinister shit going on that we dont know. I’m not saying all companies are listening and at all times but they are listening in general and given the politicla climate, we should act as if they are listening at all times.
It was already known before the whistleblower that:
- Siri inputs (all STT at that time, really) were processed off device
- Siri had false activations
The “sinister” thing that we learned was that Apple was reviewing those activations to see if they were false, with the stated intent (as confirmed by the whistleblower) of using them to reduce false activations.
There are also black box methods to verify that data isn’t being sent and that particular hardware (like the microphone) isn’t being used, and there are people who look for vulnerabilities as a hobby. If the microphones on the most/second most popular phone brand (iPhone, Samsung) were secretly recording all the time, evidence of that would be easy to find and would be a huge scoop - why haven’t we heard about it yet?
Snowden and Wikileaks dumped a huge amount of info about governments spying, but nothing in there involved always on microphones in our cell phones.
To be fair, an individual phone is a single compromise away from actually listening to you, so it still makes sense to avoid having sensitive conversations within earshot of a wirelessly connected microphone. But generally that’s not the concern most people should have.
Advertising tracking is much more sinister and complicated and harder to wrap your head around than “my phone is listening to me” and as a result makes for a much less glamorous story, but there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of stories out there about how invasive advertising companies’ methods are, about how they know too much, etc… Think about what LLMs do with text. The level of prediction that they can do. That’s what ML algorithms can do with your behavior.
If you’re misattributing what advertisers know about you to the phone listening and reporting back, then you’re not paying attention to what they’re actually doing.
So yes - be vigilant. Just be vigilant about the right thing.
Of course it’s recording me. That data is gold.
hey my dude, you have an interesting post history. what inspires your posts? care to share your story?
I am inspired to post by the prospect of discussing weird interesting stuff. I love doing that.
Lots of fishing involved tho.
That would require some considerable effort to pull off.
Something far more plausible: a bug in zoom that reverses the camera and/or microphone button functionality.
Interesting. A few comments and criticisms on the details. Zero replies pertaining to my actual point. And lots of downvotes.
They are afraid.
“It’s crazy that 1+1=3”
“No, it literally doesn’t. 1+1=2.”
“Why are you criticizing the DETAILS? Reply to my point!”What do you call somebody who insists upon ignoring the forest, preferring to closely examine the bark on a single tree?
Dendrologist?
Idk.
If they’re only one who notices they’re all plastic and that the forest is therefore artificial, and hence in no way representative of actual nature…
A genius?
The LLM-based search result summarizer of my “trust” says the following: Someone who insists on ignoring the forest and closely examining the bark on a single tree might be called detail-oriented, nitpicky, or shortsighted.
Afraid of what? Replying to what point? Your “shower thought” (lmao) is just a messy thought process of which every single step is based on nothing.
Why would we waste energy discussing consequences of events that will never happen?
I think it’s quite plausible actually. Implicit to the present state of things. It’s just a nice hack away.
At least an entertaining subject for speculation.
But no, you people found a way to find it threatening. You people do that a lot.
IDK about the rest, but I don’t find it threatening specifically because your first assumption was false.
I don’t shit-talk people, so in your scenario, everyone just gets texts about how I talk them up to others? So suddenly I’m more liked than ever, because suddenly I’m one of the few who isn’t an asshole just because I can get away with it, and now everyone knows that… Big whoop.
Is that the kind of discussion you wanted?
On a more serious note, if your scenario actually occurred, I think most people would just shrug and move on. If it happened to just one person, they might be ostracized… But if it’s everyone, people are more likely to just forgive and forget because everyone had their “private” thoughts exposed.
Sure, some relationships might be irreparably destroyed… But others might be stronger than ever. Life-shattering social drama happen all the time. But at the end of the day… Everyone still needs to go to work so they can eat and have a home, and companies will still need employees to get shit done.
I don’t think it would be too different just because it happened to everyone at the same time.
Compared to that nothingburger, your claims and responses to comments are far more engaging.
Yr probably right. Society would go on as usual because the bottom line is, ultimately, unaffected.
But, squishy moods on a mass scale constitute the weather of politics and commerce. From that angle, big things might happen.
Consider the general stress of a population : X. When x goes up we vote and shop thusly. That’s a known thing.
And x would definitely go up here.So such a hackyvirus could be a tool in shifting a close election or selling an unpopular product.
(Not to mention the effect on phone sales, attitudes towards privacy, the eternally eroding nuclear family…)
So that’s a thing to think about.
That’s not what they said or implied, and nor is what follows a reasonable conclusion
I’m convinced you’re just a sophist who loves the act of arguing itself for its own sake, without any care for truth, only appearing insightful and logical
You offer so many accusations. It’s hard to keep track.
No, I’ve pretty consistently called you a fart huffing egomaniac, or similar. But hey, I guess you just couldn’t resist yet another deflection.
Oh yes, I am so threatened. You got me.
