This was productive and I’m sure you convinced a whole lot of people

They’re suing him for copying scenes shot for shot from their movie after they told him explicitly not to

There isn’t necessarily a problem but it is definitely circumventing at least the spirit if not the letter of the law by not allowing data subjects to provide fully informed consent.

Legally obfuscation can be anonymization depending on how it’s done

Depending on the data structures there are many methods to anonymize without supervision. None of them are perfect but the don’t have to be - just legally defensible.

That is very much what the EU AI act is trying to get at. LLMs are covered under GPDR and EU AI act, it is not a simple matter

Assuming it is PII when you store it. This is a complicated discussion that will absolutely come down to what Slack can defend to a regulator

That’s not true at all. If you obfuscate the PII it stops being PII. This is an extremely common trick companies use to circumvent these laws.

That’s not strictly speaking true. It requires more oversight and mechanisms of control but those very well could already be in place.

And yet the PR they got from it will last

That’s the point

Don’t be evil

They’re not exclusive but this isn’t a joke and a gripe - it’s just a gripe.

So this is not a joke, it’s a gripe

You mean the user RumbleDotCom didn’t provide a neutral source? \s