Yes, exactly, it will only get worse because there is no mass resistance.

Since paedophilia is such a terrible crime that is universally despised by all social classes and political orientations, I think the Epstein scandal is the last chance to trigger mass protests against the obvious depravity of the political system and the open and fatal corruption in government offices. Given the severity of these crimes, this would be an opportunity to overcome the division between left and right in the interests of the population and to rise up against the real enemy, namely the moneyed aristocracy. However, since this will not even happen in the case of this completely perverse scandal, I can’t imagine how it could ever happen.

So it will turn out exactly as you describe: it will get even worse. Presumably, the elite will next transform the country from the usual plutocracy into an actual dictatorship like Russia, which makes resistance even more unlikely due to the tyranny, because then there will be repression on a scale that will make today’s status quo seem mild.

In my opinion, the current regime is already working on this - for example, with ICE, which already has a budget that compares to the military spendings of a medium-sized country and is already quite obviously acting as a secret police force outside the already dysfunctional legal system.

For people like you, who have long recognized the obvious, I am very sorry, but I fear that sooner or later it will come to this due to the apathy of the American people. If they don’t act now, I think they won’t be able to do so at all soon.

What hope? That would only lead to the orange pedophile being replaced by someone who is smarter and less obviously depraved, but just as unscrupulous. The only option is a general strike by the population that lasts until reforms are implemented that fundamentally reshape the system - and unfortunately, that is out of the question, as the current president impressively demonstrates: No crime could be terrible enough to motivate the American people to resistance, even though they are not even being oppressed by force.

Yes, I also consider this sad truth to be the most likely scenario. I mean, if the Epstein case, which clearly shows that the system is rotten to the core, is not enough to bring citizens out onto the streets and paralyze the country until serious reforms are implemented and those responsible are held accountable, then nothing will ever change and no one will be prosecuted for these terrible crimes. In short, if citizens want justice, they must rise up en masse, and they will never do so despite the monstrous actions of their leaders, even though, unlike in true dictatorships, they are not in immediate danger of life and limb (yet).

As a result, the situation will only get worse, because the unscrupulous monsters at the top realize that they are untouchable and that the American people will let them get away with absolutely anything. As I said before, if the Eppstein case is not enough, I don’t even want to imagine what it would take to mobilize US citizens against their overlords.

Are US citizens actually aware that this affair already allows only one conclusion, namely that the US is a banana republic where the law counts for absolutely nothing, a nation controlled by organized crime of the worst kind?

As others have already asked, but with different expectations: Have I missed something? I think I am fairly up to date on the published Epstein documents. None of this seems surprising to me - on the contrary, it’s what I expected (even badly redacted files). So is the idea now that there are documents that incriminate the US-President, files that may even be used as evidence that the US president is a child molester and that he is being protected by government institutions, or have I missed some new developments?

I’m just asking because I’m not sure whether US citizens are only now recognizing their president for what he is, or whether it’s actually a matter of holding him accountable for at least some of his particularly terrible deeds. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but I can hardly imagine that happening in this system.

But please don’t get me wrong, I also believe that if, despite the regime’s ongoing attempts at censorship, absolutely nothing happens in this matter, the criminal justice system in the US can no longer be taken seriously by anyone. This is probably one of the biggest scandals in US history, involving immeasurable suffering on the part of hundreds of victims. If there are no consequences, if US citizens let this slide even though it is completely obvious that state institutions are actively covering up serious crimes, then they deserve no better.

So, my initial question again against this backdrop: Have I missed something? Is there any hope that somethin could actually change in the US?

Yes, it’s true: hope dies last. Perhaps our leaders will finally realize how dangerous it is to be absolutely dependent - and on such an unpredictable regime at that. Many Countries from the East understood the importance of digital sovereignty decades ago and have largely built up their own systems. In Europe, this has been prevented by massive lobbying, but perhaps something will really happen now that we are being blackmailed because of our self-inflicted dependence.

That is absolutely correct, but unfortunately very unlikely, because many of our politicians are either incredibly incompetent or simply corrupt. This is for example evident in the fact that they even want to introduce Palantir, as was recently the case in Germany, where the state of Baden-Württemberg decided to use the US mass surveillance software “Gotham” in a completely unlawful manner and against the will of the population (its use is also already planned at the federal level).

So unfortunately, I have little hope here, but I will still try to do my part.

This would be extremely important, but unfortunately it is unlikely to happen with our politicians. On the contrary, they are even signing new deals with companies such as Palantir, thereby providing the US regime with the most sensitive information about EU citizens. So, unfortunately, there is little to be expected in this regard.

Our politicians should really stop pretending that the US is an ally. They haven’t been for a long time, but the current regime is so corrupt and utterly unscrupulous that it’s impossible to reach any kind of agreement with them. The Epstein story alone proves this, not to mention the cold-blooded murders of Venezuelan citizens in violation of international law, the blackmail with tariffs, all the Nazi-Shit and so on and so forth - this nation is a banana republic led by organized crime and our politicians should treat it as such.

It’s a cult

That’s how it is in the US. However, I’m from Europe, where some legal systems still function reasonably well - legal disputes aren’t exactly cheap here either, but they don’t completely ruin you (can happen tho).

But yes, it’s true, you don’t stand a chance against the giant corporations here either.

Hmm, seems like one can only conclude that they don’t want to know. Today, I watched a House hearing from September in which Kash Patel was questioned. Even then, it was so obvious that it was a cover-up: he awkwardly dodged the most basic questions, couldn’t explain why victims were never interviewed even though they had asked to be, and so on and so forth - a real clown show - and each of the conservative representatives first thanked Patel for his great work and then asked random questions about Antifa or some other nonsense. You would think that no one could accept this – especially not from a party that campaigned on this issue. So I think that either they don’t care or they are ok with it.

Are the MAGA supporters in the US actually aware of all this? Or does this news not even reach them?

I mean, it seems impossible to spin this obvious cover-up in a way that leaves the regime with any credibility whatsoever. I can’t imagine how that could be done.

Yes, I agree. Explicitly excluding AI training in your terms of use or license probably won’t deter most companies, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to include this as an addition, since a clear contractual prohibition would likely:

• reduce ambiguities regarding defenses such as fair use and
• create an explicit basis for contractual claims that could be additionally enforced if someone ignores the restriction.

For example, when selling a book, you could require explicit consent (checkbox opt-in or similar) to strengthen enforceability. Enforcement would still be difficult, of course, but an explicit clause might at least have a certain deterrent effect and, if necessary, create additional leverage in court, I think.

Ja, dieser Argumentation, an der durchaus etwas dran ist, sind die Gerichte bislang weitestgehend gefolgt. Dennoch sind m.E. weder LLMs noch Musik- oder Bildgenerierungsmodelle in der Lage, wirklich neue Dinge zu erschaffen.

Was sie tun, ist, Muster in ihrem riesigen Korpus an Trainingsmaterial zu finden, die sie gewissermaßen als eine Art Bauplan oder Vektor abspeichern. Auf Anfrage können sie diese Vektoren wiedergeben und/oder mit anderen solcher Vektoren kombinieren. Daraus ergibt sich dann eine Art Collage, die im Vergleich zum Ausgangsmaterial durchaus etwas neues sein kann und nicht unbedingt direkte Teile aus dem Ausgangsmaterial enthalten muss. Der Grad der “Neuheit” ist jedoch durch die verfügbaren Vektoren begrenzt, die sich aus dem Trainingmaterial ergeben. Der kreative Teil, nämlich die Nutzeranfrage, kann damit nur auf zugegeben sehr viele, jedoch trotzdem nur auf begrenzt viele Arten aus den vorhandenen Vektoren umgesetzt werden.

In einem menschlichen Sinne ist dies insgesamt wohl eher kein kreativer Prozess, sondern viel eher ein statistischer, da das Ergebnis stets auf Grundlage der verfügbaren Muster in Kombination mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung hinsichtlich der Anfrage des Nutzers entsteht. Die KI-Modelle selbst sind nicht in der Lage, etwas von sich aus hinzuzufügen. Wäre es anders, wären die Ergebnisse weitestgehend unbrauchbar, denn sie wären für Menschen unverständlich (sie würden nicht in unsere Welt passen). Diese Modelle haben somit über das Erkennen von Mustern und deren Reproduktion und/oder Kombination mit anderen Mustern hinaus keinerlei Verständnis von den dargestellten Dinge, jedenfalls keines, das menschlichem Verständnis auch nur nahekommen würde.

Das Problem bei all dem ist, dass diese Modelle vielen Menschen die Lebensgrundlage entziehen. Das ist in sich natürlich schon ein wesentliches Problem, jedoch heißt es auch, das künftig umso weniger menschliche Werke entstehen werden. Das wiederum bedeutet, das man sich über kurz oder lang in einen Teufelskreis aus reproduzierten oder kombinierten, jedoch stets bereits vorhandenen Mustern begibt - dann gibt es tatsächlich nichts neues mehr unter der Sonne; nur noch millionenfache “Remixes” von schon Vorhandenem.

Ich denke also, dass es insgesamt durchaus auch eine Diskussion darüber sein sollte, ob und inwieweit Kultur etwas wichtiges und schützenswertes ist. LLMs und dergleichen emulieren Kultur lediglich. Sie selbst sind zu keiner schöpferischen Leistung in der Lage und schränken die Kreativität ihrer Nutzer durch einen begrenzten Satz an möglichen Kombinationen aus gelernten Mustern ein. Es kann daraus Neues entstehen, aber nur in den Grenzen der zugrundeliegenden Logik. Fraglich ist dann eben, ob hierdurch nicht etwas sehr Wesentliches verloren geht bzw. ob sich die Menschen damit abfinden möchten, das Kultur mehr und mehr wie Pop-Musik gehandhabt wird: stets einer vordefinierten Logik folgend, die der Kreativität enge Grenzen setzt.

How Spotify’s $109 Billion Market Cap Stacks Up Against Other Music and Entertainment Companies

Nevertheless, Spotify makes more profit than any music label, even more than all the remaining music labels combined. This is how it works today: music, literature, journalism, and art no longer exist according to this logic - only content. And as disrespectful as the term sounds, that’s how it’s paid for - with scrabs because that’s the business model.

Your pirate approach is no longer up to date, because it is no longer directed against large corporations, but robs artists of the little they have left. This will only accelerate the trend: no one will try to make a living from art anymore. If you think that people will do it anyway because they want to express themselves, I think you are absolutely wrong.

Spotify absolutely deserves to be singled out for its exploitative practices, especially since this company is largely responsible for musicians not being paid fairly for their hard work. It’s just a shame that there’s hardly anything to steal here other than people’s hard work, to which Spotify has contributed nothing - but that applies to all companies that are successful on the internet today. Without exception, all of these companies are built on the same platform logic: the content that these companies exploit is paid for with starvation wages, if at all (not at all in the case of LLMs).

Therefore, I cannot see anything positive in this because it does not change the underlying problem in the slightest.

I completely agree with you regarding Nestlé. The fact that it is a European company does not make its practices any better. I see the behavior of the US as an opportunity to rethink my consumption habits anyway—if I am already researching which products to buy, I might as well weed out those suppliers who stand for the same unscrupulous logic: Nestlé is definitely one of them.

So thank you for the additional information.

Cool things sell well. That’s why there are many brands in Europe that sound American but aren’t actually American. Philadelphia, a brand that has been around in Europe for a long time, could just as easily be from a European manufacturer, but that’s not the case.

Another example: In Germany, there are countless pizza delivery services called New York Pizza or something similar. These are, of course, small local companies from Germany that have simply named themselves that way.

Due to the long, close relationship between Europe and the US, this has developed to such an extent that it is now almost impossible to tell from the brand name whether a company is European or not. Now, for obvious reasons, it is unfortunately necessary to boycott US products - which is easier said than done, because US companies own numerous former EU brands that sound European and, on the other hand, many EU companies have given their products American-sounding names.