MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Come on people! Signing! against AI  (Read 1713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 10, 2024, 11:07 »
+7
https://chng.it/Q4mPz45mrG

" We can't get enough of this deluge of Ai content, there is a need for a limit and I will present this petition to Adobestock if we reach a significant number of signatures. "

I just signed the petition of Antonio Gravantes StockPhoto, who for those who don't know him, is a professional stocker who has managed to close many fake accounts on shutterstock and AS and I think that this initiative that he is now trying is important regarding the massive AI content



« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2024, 11:16 »
+3
The problem with this is that it doesn't really "solve" anything - except actually hurts 'good' contributors in the following...

a) The deluge of east indian spammers will simply "hire" (in person in their hometown, on fivver/etc) to "create new accounts" to spam more entries. They ALREADY brag about doing that on some forums.

If one wanted to effectively do something - quite simply don't approve east indian accounts (and maybe retroactively remove them since 2022/2023). Of course, there are also some malaysian, some african/nigerian/etc + some arabic countries - but that tends to be where the majority of spam + uploading other people's (stolen) content originates from, on most of the agencies.

b) There already are limits. Just the east indian spammers do the 'whack-a-mole' by creating 50+ accounts from different east indians, and then using their names/ids to spam content.

c) 2nd - the "cat is already out of the bag' so to speak. There's already a lot of submissions - so if there were "no" new submissions tomorrow - sales for contributors would be the same/similar.

What WOULD be effective though - is getting companies like midjourney, "research" companies like stable diffusion/etc RETROACTIVELY paying all the contributors for the STOLEN content they used - and then setting up a system where they PAY IN PERPETUITY (i.e., regular monthly income) EVERY TIME an asset is generated using a model that was based off of stolen content. THAT would be effective + fair. It is easy to set up such a system.

Push for THAT.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2024, 11:22 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2024, 11:18 »
+1
https://chng.it/Q4mPz45mrG

" We can't get enough of this deluge of Ai content, there is a need for a limit and I will present this petition to Adobestock if we reach a significant number of signatures. "

I just signed the petition of Antonio Gravantes StockPhoto, who for those who don't know him, is a professional stocker who has managed to close many fake accounts on shutterstock and AS and I think that this initiative that he is now trying is important regarding the massive AI content
I signed it.

Sent from my moto g82 5G using Tapatalk


« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2024, 11:22 »
0



What WOULD be effective though - is getting companies like midjourney, "research" companies like stable diffusion/etc RETROACTIVELY paying all the contributors for the STOLEN content they used - and then setting up a system where they PAY IN PERPETUITY (i.e., regular monthly income) EVERY TIME an asset is generated using a model that was based off of stolen content. THAT would be effective + fair. It is easy to set up such a system.

Push for THAT.

You're spot-on



Sent from my moto g82 5G using Tapatalk


« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2024, 12:29 »
0
I proposed this more than six months ago,but I didn't have many supporters about this idea! :D

It was important in my opinion from the beginning to impose a limit on the AI ​​content that can be submitted for review,my idea was 500 per month,which is already a generous limit in my opinion.

I'm not against AI,in fact I also have AI content in my portfolio,and I think that the mass uploading of AI content is still bypassed by Adobe's sales system,in any case,it doesn't matter much how many millions of contents there are,but the number of active contributors is more of a problem.

in my opinion,for a sales system like Adobe's,it may be more difficult to manage a higher number of contributors,rather than a billion new contents.

however I am very much in agreement with imposing a limit on AI uploads because:

-helps review times

-promotes quality

because it puts an end to the "mad rush",creators have more time to use tools like generative fill,and other tools,thus having time to create and also select the contents to send.

however,even if there is no limit,there are already many rejections.

I support you,but in my opinion it is already too late,when I proposed it,Adobe's AI collection was around 5 million,now we have already exceeded 68 million.

I also don't think this proposal will be accepted by Adobe.





« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2024, 14:38 »
+2



What WOULD be effective though - is getting companies like midjourney, "research" companies like stable diffusion/etc RETROACTIVELY paying all the contributors for the STOLEN content they used - and then setting up a system where they PAY IN PERPETUITY (i.e., regular monthly income) EVERY TIME an asset is generated using a model that was based off of stolen content. THAT would be effective + fair. It is easy to set up such a system.

Push for THAT.

You're spot-on



Sent from my moto g82 5G using Tapatalk


it's far from easy since there's no way to tell the address and banking info of the images scraped - not to mention the 'free' sources which have actually stolen images. the questions about scraping haven't been decided yet.

but the much bigger question is who is going to actually make such a proposal and who would enforce it? the UN?  the ai companies certainly won't voluntarily agree.

why bother to propose plans which are dead on arrival?


« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2024, 15:14 »
0
I proposed this more than six months ago,but I didn't have many supporters about this idea! :D

It was important in my opinion from the beginning to impose a limit on the AI ​​content that can be submitted for review,my idea was 500 per month,which is already a generous limit in my opinion.

I'm not against AI,in fact I also have AI content in my portfolio,and I think that the mass uploading of AI content is still bypassed by Adobe's sales system,in any case,it doesn't matter much how many millions of contents there are,but the number of active contributors is more of a problem.

in my opinion,for a sales system like Adobe's,it may be more difficult to manage a higher number of contributors,rather than a billion new contents.

however I am very much in agreement with imposing a limit on AI uploads because:

-helps review times

-promotes quality

because it puts an end to the "mad rush",creators have more time to use tools like generative fill,and other tools,thus having time to create and also select the contents to send.

however,even if there is no limit,there are already many rejections.

I support you,but in my opinion it is already too late,when I proposed it,Adobe's AI collection was around 5 million,now we have already exceeded 68 million.

I also don't think this proposal will be accepted by Adobe.

They already DO have limits. Part of the "problem" is east indians creating 50+ "new accounts" to circumvent the limits.

« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2024, 15:56 »
0
@SuperPhoto

And what is this limit?I think it was said 3000 contents max in queue?if so It's too high.

Yes...even Santa Claus and Thor too probably has 50 accounts!  :D
but this doesn't matter,because these accounts are terminated by Adobe sooner or later.

« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2024, 03:21 »
0
then as I already said,in my opinion basing a portfolio only on AI is a mistake in the long term,just as not making AI content is a mistake too!

Your positioning is clear. And you have some nerve to intervene on this post.  ;D
You should look for the post with the petition: "Come on people! Signing! PRO AI"  ::)
or go and pour out your views on the numerous posts that praise all the advantages of AI

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who still speak here are won over by AI.
Otherwise, the approach of this petition is commendable. But, I doubt Adobe will change its policy, they enjoy an all-powerful situation. And they dare to talk about ethics...

« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2024, 05:24 »
0
then as I already said,in my opinion basing a portfolio only on AI is a mistake in the long term,just as not making AI content is a mistake too!

Your positioning is clear. And you have some nerve to intervene on this post.  ;D
You should look for the post with the petition: "Come on people! Signing! PRO AI"  ::)
or go and pour out your views on the numerous posts that praise all the advantages of AI

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who still speak here are won over by AI.
Otherwise, the approach of this petition is commendable. But, I doubt Adobe will change its policy, they enjoy an all-powerful situation. And they dare to talk about ethics...

as I have already said,I am in favor of the petition,I hope it will be accepted.  :)

I think creating using AI is a good thing,but placing a limit on the AI ​​content that can be uploaded is an equally good thing.

I believe that 500 AI contents in queue per account are more than enough,it seems like a good wide limit to me.

but in any case mine is a limited vision,while Adobe has a broader vision of the situation,so I'm more than sure that they will do the best thing.

« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2024, 06:03 »
0
Your positioning is clear. And you have some nerve to intervene on this post.  ;D
You should look for the post with the petition: "Come on people! Signing! PRO AI"  ::)
or go and pour out your views on the numerous posts that praise all the advantages of AI

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who still speak here are won over by AI.
Otherwise, the approach of this petition is commendable. But, I doubt Adobe will change its policy, they enjoy an all-powerful situation. And they dare to talk about ethics...

as I have already said,I am in favor of the petition,I hope it will be accepted.  :)
I think creating using AI is a good thing,but placing a limit on the AI ​​content that can be uploaded is an equally good thing.
I believe that 500 AI contents in queue per account are more than enough,it seems like a good wide limit to me.
but in any case mine is a limited vision,while Adobe has a broader vision of the situation,so I'm more than sure that they will do the best thing.

Since you are still here, the principle of unfair competition, of large-scale theft of intellectual property, does that speak to you, does that revolt you?

Do you have any idea of the work and time required to produce 500 professional quality images (photo, 3d, vector...) of 500 different subjects, for someone who does not use AI?

And frankly, your endless praise for Adobe...  ::)

« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2024, 06:55 »
+1
Quote

as I have already said,I am in favor of the petition,I hope it will be accepted.  :)

I think creating using AI is a good thing,but placing a limit on the AI ​​content that can be uploaded is an equally good thing.

I believe that 500 AI contents in queue per account are more than enough,it seems like a good wide limit to me.

but in any case mine is a limited vision,while Adobe has a broader vision of the situation,so I'm more than sure that they will do the best thing.

Just to clarify, queue limit does not mean less submission volume, if those 500 images are reviewed each day will bring much more content online than 3001 in queue reviewed once monthly. The presence of queue have diferent purpose.

« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2024, 09:17 »
0
then as I already said,in my opinion basing a portfolio only on AI is a mistake in the long term,just as not making AI content is a mistake too!

Your positioning is clear. And you have some nerve to intervene on this post.  ;D
You should look for the post with the petition: "Come on people! Signing! PRO AI"  ::)
or go and pour out your views on the numerous posts that praise all the advantages of AI

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who still speak here are won over by AI.
Otherwise, the approach of this petition is commendable. But, I doubt Adobe will change its policy, they enjoy an all-powerful situation. And they dare to talk about ethics...

as I have already said,I am in favor of the petition,I hope it will be accepted.  :)

I think creating using AI is a good thing,but placing a limit on the AI ​​content that can be uploaded is an equally good thing.

I believe that 500 AI contents in queue per account are more than enough,it seems like a good wide limit to me.

but in any case mine is a limited vision,while Adobe has a broader vision of the situation,so I'm more than sure that they will do the best thing.


Aside from the fact there is ALREADY a 'limit' in place, there are several issues with this. Let's say you  made a limit of 100 per person:

a) East indian spammers would do what they are already doing, and that is set up another 10 (or more) accounts in friends/familys/etc names, and then play dumb and whine and cry if they get caught and their accounts disabled. And then come on forums potentially like this and whine about 'what is happening'? playing dumb, knowing full well they were deliberately trying to spam the accounts.

b) If you somehow eliminated that situation (simple solution, don't approve east indian accounts, and disable existing ones post jan 2023 when the media made a co-rodinated annoucement to 'officially' bring public awareness to theft-based ai, even though it's already existed for years, side topic - most high level "media" (i.e., t.v. "news") is jewish run, and most big "ai" companies (i.e., midjourney, chatGPT, etc) arejewish run - so basically it wasn't "news" - but rather massive advertising and scratching each other's backs) - you'd still then have an issue with let's say 50 people producing images of 'bananas', because they like bananas. You'd still have '5000' images from 50 other people, so even if you had the most amazing picture of a banana, you'd still be "competing" with 5000 other 'banana' images, and there is the issue of discoverability. (I.e., people aren't going to scroll 50 pages to find that 'perfect' banana picture, even if yours was the best in the world but located at the bottom of page 50).

c) Unless the current database was purged of ALL "ai" assets (not really a viable option because you'd have a huge outcry from existing community who already did a lot of work/etc) - then - with the existing HUGE database - that type of limitation wouldn't really do anything.

d) How do you arrive at the arbitrary limit of "50"? Why not "1" per day? Why not 100,000/day? Why not "1" per year?

The "REAL" solution - at least one (not the only one, but one) - is actually to push for the companies PROMOTING the theft (i.e., media + "ai" companies) - to basically retroactively pay contributors whose works they stole from, PLUS - set up REGULAR PERPETUAL payments (not one-time crap drivel) - each time an "ai" asset (which is essentially just 'blending' images (more specifically, creating mathematical models from stolen works, then blending those models) - each time an "ai" asset is generated - make a perpetual, regular payment to the contributors whose work was used in composing that model.

THAT is a good solution.

Crying about "limits" doesn't solve anything, especially because that pre-supposes you are "okay" with the "ai" generation model/payment model "as-is" - you just want to prevent new competition.

Instead - push for lifetime perpetual payments. THAT is effective.

« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2024, 09:18 »
0
Quote

as I have already said,I am in favor of the petition,I hope it will be accepted.  :)

I think creating using AI is a good thing,but placing a limit on the AI ​​content that can be uploaded is an equally good thing.

I believe that 500 AI contents in queue per account are more than enough,it seems like a good wide limit to me.

but in any case mine is a limited vision,while Adobe has a broader vision of the situation,so I'm more than sure that they will do the best thing.

Just to clarify, queue limit does not mean less submission volume, if those 500 images are reviewed each day will bring much more content online than 3001 in queue reviewed once monthly. The presence of queue have diferent purpose.

I think that 500 AI content in queue is a fair limit,considering the rejections(which I believe is around 30-50% on average for AI content)and that it takes 15-30 days on average for revisions.

from what I read in the petition nothing is specified in this regard and perhaps it should be more specific.

it is only written this:"We ask Adobestock to impose a restrictive limit on the submission of AI-generated content,so as to also offer real content fairly and to encourage new AI artists to send only a few images with greater attention to quality".

credo sia meglio specificare quale limite volete chiedere.  :)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2024, 10:02 by Injustice for all »

« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2024, 14:22 »
+6
..
b) If you somehow eliminated that situation (simple solution, don't approve east indian accounts, and disable existing ones post jan 2023 when the media made a co-rodinated annoucement to 'officially' bring public awareness to theft-based ai, even though it's already existed for years, side topic - most high level "media" (i.e., t.v. "news") is XXXX run, and most big "ai" companies (i.e., midjourney, chatGPT, etc) are XXX run -......

your anti-semitic libels are uncalled for  (marked in red above), as are your continued slams against all 1+ billion East Indians

« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2024, 14:30 »
+2
 
 
 ..
Do you have any idea of the work and time required to produce 500 professional quality images (photo, 3d, vector...) of 500 different subjects, for someone who does not use AI?
 ..
do you have any idea of the time to create 500 pro quality AI images?--most of these discussions have centered on poor quality spamming

« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2024, 23:52 »
+1
..
b) If you somehow eliminated that situation (simple solution, don't approve east indian accounts, and disable existing ones post jan 2023 when the media made a co-rodinated annoucement to 'officially' bring public awareness to theft-based ai, even though it's already existed for years, side topic - most high level "media" (i.e., t.v. "news") is XXXX run, and most big "ai" companies (i.e., midjourney, chatGPT, etc) are XXX run -......

your anti-semitic libels are uncalled for  (marked in red above), as are your continued slams against all 1+ billion East Indians

Lol - the comments aren't "anti-semetic" -  (and you should actually look up the definition of what a "semite" is). The ownership is in factJewish, and it is a well known fact withinJewish circles - that that is one of the things you do for "business". Please don't be manipulated. Look @ the ownership of the companies, follow the money. It's also sad but simultaneously funny that you have become so "triggered" that uttering the word "jewish" makes you feel compelled to write red "xxxx"'s (understandable though as schooling is designed to program that response in people). As an aside, other "words" are designed to make people "triggered". I'm assuming you probably get triggered with hearing the word "covid" actually 'believing' it was real because of all the tell-a-vision programming you received the last 4 years? That was also a scam/con designed to simultaneously inject ppl w/poison while stealing their money via things like inflation (money printing), because they had been conned into believing they were sick while suffocating themselves and breathing in poisons from the masks? (Spoiler alert: the "sickness" was from poisons on the masks/tests/etc, as well as the co-ordinated pyschological operations on the general populace, i.e., things like isolation tactics, etc) - also designed to get people to 'believe' in it like a religion. Different topic though.

With respect to east indians "in general" - it's also a fact - it isn't a "slam". Simply look @ the accounts that do fraud, and the names/locations of the account holders. Or join a few facebook groups/watch a few east indian videos on youtube where they promote the "latest business model" of simply "downloading complete portfolios and re-uploading them to make $$$". And if you read what I  wrote - instead of having a knee-jerk programmed response - you would see I say its not "all" east indians - BUT - the majority of the "fake" accounts, whack-a-mole accounts, etc are indeed, created by east indians in east india. And again - not the "only" country - but one of the dominant ones. It would be quite simple really to "stop theft" in general (i.e., downloading complete portfolios from unlimited download sites then re-uploading) - just don't approve those accounts. It's also quite simple to do a couple programmatic checks to verify that isn't the case - but the blackrock/vanguard consoritorium of companies (also, incidentally jewish run, look up the ownership) - want to encourage that kind of behaviour to manipulate people into 'demanding' to be 'saved', via their 'solution', aka things like a 'digital id'/'id2020.org' (which is actually very very bad, and has a lot of nefarious purposes). Also a completely different topic, but accurate as well.

As an aside - assuming you don't actually speak any other languages other than English, is that correct? Most other cultures have no issues calling a spade a spade, it's primarily western countries via the education system that have been "trained" through schooling to be "afraid" of stating the obvious, lest they be 'perceived' in a less than "authority approved" favourable light.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2024, 00:15 by SuperPhoto »


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2024, 11:43 »
+4
..
b) If you somehow eliminated that situation (simple solution, don't approve east indian accounts, and disable existing ones post jan 2023 when the media made a co-rodinated annoucement to 'officially' bring public awareness to theft-based ai, even though it's already existed for years, side topic - most high level "media" (i.e., t.v. "news") is XXXX run, and most big "ai" companies (i.e., midjourney, chatGPT, etc) are XXX run -......

your anti-semitic libels are uncalled for  (marked in red above), as are your continued slams against all 1+ billion East Indians

Thanks for noticing. I was wondering how many East Indians are Jews?  :o Oh I see, it's those two groups and probably more.

My view is, it's unnecessary to blame and label people for origins or their ethnicity or religion as the cause of problems in the stock industry or our business.

Could we stick to business and AI an skip the personal attacks?

« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2024, 20:46 »
0
Quote
Thanks for noticing. I was wondering how many East Indians are Jews?  :o Oh I see, it's those two groups and probably more.

My view is, it's unnecessary to blame and label people for origins or their ethnicity or religion as the cause of problems in the stock industry or our business.

Could we stick to business and AI an skip the personal attacks?

Lol, hey pete. Not sure if you are trolling, just bored - or genuinely curious to the answer to your question. That question I don't know - I 'spose you could take a poll?

If someone gets upset at stating the obvious - it's like saying "hey, that car is GREEN!". And then someone replying "OMFG! yOU ARE an ANTI-GREEN CAR person! OMFG! ANTI-GREEN! ANTI GREEN! ANTI-GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (Which lol - in itself makes no sense - because you simply stated a car was green. One could argue that you are actually PRO green because you made people aware of the lovely greenness of the car).

It is significant understanding how different sets of people conduct business. Like, using a different example - if you went to China to do a business deal, and the first thing you did was to start discussing business, you'd have a very short trip. It's not how Chinese businessmen conduct business. It's relevant to understand what types of individuals/groups/background are responsible for certain things in order to deal with it effectively.

Otherwise - ignoring how a different culture/person/etc conducts business because you'd don't want to be "perceived" as some label (which - actually IS a "business tactic" employed by some groups - making ppl 'fearful' to be 'labelled' a certain way state the obvious) is actually rather foolish.

But then I suppose that is why some (of course, not all - because some microstockers are very intelligent) - but referrering specifically to some microstockers are on here whining & complaining like children, because they are not international businessmen, but rather hoping they can stick their head in the sand and if they throw a big enough tantrum, someone might do something. Thing is -  if one wants to stick their head in the sand and figuratively go 'la la la la la can't hear you la la la la!' - while that is their prerogative - one should be aware that the different people/groups/etc find that incredibly funny and certainly would take advantage of a person who conducts business  "that" way...

« Last Edit: May 13, 2024, 20:55 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2024, 07:21 »
+1
https://chng.it/Q4mPz45mrG

" We can't get enough of this deluge of Ai content, there is a need for a limit and I will present this petition to Adobestock if we reach a significant number of signatures. "

I just signed the petition of Antonio Gravantes StockPhoto, who for those who don't know him, is a professional stocker who has managed to close many fake accounts on shutterstock and AS and I think that this initiative that he is now trying is important regarding the massive AI content

It's a well-worded petition and I just signed it.

« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2024, 09:49 »
+3
then as I already said,in my opinion basing a portfolio only on AI is a mistake in the long term,just as not making AI content is a mistake too!

Your positioning is clear. And you have some nerve to intervene on this post.  ;D
You should look for the post with the petition: "Come on people! Signing! PRO AI"  ::)
or go and pour out your views on the numerous posts that praise all the advantages of AI

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who still speak here are won over by AI.
Otherwise, the approach of this petition is commendable. But, I doubt Adobe will change its policy, they enjoy an all-powerful situation. And they dare to talk about ethics...

It's hard to keep beating the drum for your minority opinion. Why don't you form a union or coalition of people who agree with you? I'm not won over by AI but I have better things to do than cry, complain, attack and accuse others. Next you'll claim that the people who agree with you have left the forum. Imaginary friends who agree, but they are invisible?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2024, 14:24 »
+5
Quote
Thanks for noticing. I was wondering how many East Indians are Jews?  :o Oh I see, it's those two groups and probably more.

My view is, it's unnecessary to blame and label people for origins or their ethnicity or religion as the cause of problems in the stock industry or our business.

Could we stick to business and AI an skip the personal attacks?

Lol, hey pete. Not sure if you are trolling, just bored - or genuinely curious to the answer to your question. That question I don't know - I 'spose you could take a poll?

If someone gets upset at stating the obvious - it's like saying "hey, that car is GREEN!". And then someone replying "OMFG! yOU ARE an ANTI-GREEN CAR person! OMFG! ANTI-GREEN! ANTI GREEN! ANTI-GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (Which lol - in itself makes no sense - because you simply stated a car was green. One could argue that you are actually PRO green because you made people aware of the lovely greenness of the car).

It is significant understanding how different sets of people conduct business. Like, using a different example - if you went to China to do a business deal, and the first thing you did was to start discussing business, you'd have a very short trip. It's not how Chinese businessmen conduct business. It's relevant to understand what types of individuals/groups/background are responsible for certain things in order to deal with it effectively.

Otherwise - ignoring how a different culture/person/etc conducts business because you'd don't want to be "perceived" as some label (which - actually IS a "business tactic" employed by some groups - making ppl 'fearful' to be 'labelled' a certain way state the obvious) is actually rather foolish.

But then I suppose that is why some (of course, not all - because some microstockers are very intelligent) - but referrering specifically to some microstockers are on here whining & complaining like children, because they are not international businessmen, but rather hoping they can stick their head in the sand and if they throw a big enough tantrum, someone might do something. Thing is -  if one wants to stick their head in the sand and figuratively go 'la la la la la can't hear you la la la la!' - while that is their prerogative - one should be aware that the different people/groups/etc find that incredibly funny and certainly would take advantage of a person who conducts business  "that" way...

My point would be, not denying what you have observed, honest or not, or however you want to label your comments about the truth and reality of things.

You can attack a subject, or an activity, and point out something is wrong, without calling out an entire group of people, for what some individuals do.

I am not politically correct or woke, but I do stand up when it comes to generalizations about entire cultures, races, regions or religions, based on a smaller number of that population who are anti-social, criminal or only see the world, from a self-serving perspective.

Quote
But then I suppose that is why some (of course, not all - because some microstockers are very intelligent) - but referrering specifically to some microstockers are on here whining & complaining like children, because they are not international businessmen, but rather hoping they can stick their head in the sand and if they throw a big enough tantrum, someone might do something.

But I'll agree with that one!  ;D

« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2024, 20:17 »
0
Quote
My point would be, not denying what you have observed, honest or not, or however you want to label your comments about the truth and reality of things.

You can attack a subject, or an activity, and point out something is wrong, without calling out an entire group of people, for what some individuals do.

I am not politically correct or woke, but I do stand up when it comes to generalizations about entire cultures, races, regions or religions, based on a smaller number of that population who are anti-social, criminal or only see the world, from a self-serving perspective.

I did articulate that it did not apply to 'everyone'. However, the statements are based off of actual data, correlation between specific types of people who do that, personal experience in working with/dealing a number of different races & cultures, as well as open discussions with a number of people who openly admit that's precisely the kind of thing they do - and it for the most part actually does apply to the majority. 'Stereotypes' are stereotypes for a reason, because they do tend to be accurate, or wouldn't have become a stereotype. Glad to hear you aren't "woke" though lol. (I admit - 4 years ago when the media started publishing being "awake" and "woke" I thought they were the same thing - thinking someone 'woke up' and was now 'awake', not realizing of course they are in many ways polar opposites).

Quote
But then I suppose that is why some (of course, not all - because some microstockers are very intelligent) - but referrering specifically to some microstockers are on here whining & complaining like children, because they are not international businessmen, but rather hoping they can stick their head in the sand and if they throw a big enough tantrum, someone might do something.

But I'll agree with that one!  ;D
[/quote]

Sounds good! :)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2024, 20:24 by SuperPhoto »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2024, 11:15 »
0
Quote
My point would be, not denying what you have observed, honest or not, or however you want to label your comments about the truth and reality of things.

You can attack a subject, or an activity, and point out something is wrong, without calling out an entire group of people, for what some individuals do.

I am not politically correct or woke, but I do stand up when it comes to generalizations about entire cultures, races, regions or religions, based on a smaller number of that population who are anti-social, criminal or only see the world, from a self-serving perspective.

I did articulate that it did not apply to 'everyone'. However, the statements are based off of actual data, correlation between specific types of people who do that, personal experience in working with/dealing a number of different races & cultures, as well as open discussions with a number of people who openly admit that's precisely the kind of thing they do - and it for the most part actually does apply to the majority. 'Stereotypes' are stereotypes for a reason, because they do tend to be accurate, or wouldn't have become a stereotype. Glad to hear you aren't "woke" though lol. (I admit - 4 years ago when the media started publishing being "awake" and "woke" I thought they were the same thing - thinking someone 'woke up' and was now 'awake', not realizing of course they are in many ways polar opposites).

Quote
But then I suppose that is why some (of course, not all - because some microstockers are very intelligent) - but referrering specifically to some microstockers are on here whining & complaining like children, because they are not international businessmen, but rather hoping they can stick their head in the sand and if they throw a big enough tantrum, someone might do something.

Quote
But I'll agree with that one!  ;D

Sounds good! :)

I honestly think Woke is a stupid term, but since everyone else, knows what it means, I'm forced to use it. I might have said apologists or history revisionists, but fine, one word does it now. There are different views of who's woke and what it means, one more possibly vague modern, overused term? I see it as misguided people, who are over the top, finding fault, wrong and complaining at every opportunity.

I looked up a definition: "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination: " Well I'm concerned, but I'm not alert and over the top, awake. Candidates use it to galvanize the conservative base around culture war issues. Well I'm not politically aligned with any party. I believe in people thinking for themselves and not being led to the slaughter of party politics or mindless, voluntary, thought herding.

The obvious, which I stated, I'm not politically correct or Woke.  ;)



 ;D

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2024, 11:21 »
0
https://chng.it/Q4mPz45mrG

" We can't get enough of this deluge of Ai content, there is a need for a limit and I will present this petition to Adobestock if we reach a significant number of signatures. "

I just signed the petition of Antonio Gravantes StockPhoto, who for those who don't know him, is a professional stocker who has managed to close many fake accounts on shutterstock and AS and I think that this initiative that he is now trying is important regarding the massive AI content

Needs a bump to put the petition back on top.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
8489 Views
Last post February 01, 2007, 17:46
by GeoPappas
4 Replies
3756 Views
Last post May 02, 2007, 15:57
by madelaide
4 Replies
2968 Views
Last post August 12, 2014, 08:30
by fritz
1 Replies
2615 Views
Last post March 16, 2020, 18:25
by MatHayward
12 Replies
5684 Views
Last post December 12, 2021, 10:38
by Level6

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors