this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
329 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Because there is no easy way to ban in a democracy. Originally, the term means someone who hangs around in the lobby of congress (or such like) and talks to representatives when they come through. Imagine this is just some ordinary voter who has an important issue on their minds; perhaps someone like Raphael Lemkin. He did that. Non-profit organizations - like Greenpeace - lobby, as well. It's hard forbidding lobbying without unintended side effects.

Even if you did, it might not get you where you want. Representatives would still have an open ear for major employers in their districts. After all, voters want those jobs. Representatives meet those bosses on many occasions, like charity events. Money and power can be used to get more money and power.

Personal access is only a part of it, anyway. People influence the media and fund political ads. There's also funding for think tanks and universities. People with money and power (or fame) can do more of that.

Don't assume this something that just happens behind closed doors out of the public eye. For example, you may have noticed the recent kerfuffle between actress Scarlet Johansson and OpenAI. OAI allegedly hired a voice actress that sounded too similar to ScarJo. This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices; a rent which will be ultimately paid by consumers. And if you have a similar voice? Tough.

This is exactly something that many of these AI lobbyists are paid to achieve. They are supposed to get money for the rich people who pay them; preferably without the rich people having to do work.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think you can just outlaw paying someone to do this, not the lobbying itself, no?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it would be unconstitutional in the US in light of citizens united. I'm sure that there are many things that could be done, but no simple answers like just banning lobbying.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Well yes it's a given that Citizens United would need to be overturned for any of this to happen.

[–] mark@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Interesting take I can appreciate, but hold on there...

This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices

I dont think that's what they mean at all. I doubt people care about ScarJo growing her bank account. I think most people who side with ScarJo just dont want Open AI stealing stuff it doesnt own, including people's voices. Especially if they're profiting off it.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

That's a bit of a fine point, but yes. They want famous people to have the power to demand a rent, other concessions, or to refuse a deal entirely. So it's about more than just rent. It's the same power that landlords have, but eventually it's all about the money. If you equate it to stealing, then it's about the money, no?