Serendipity35 - Ethics & Morality in Tech

Are You in a Deepfake Image or Video?

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 04:36:00 +0000

YouTube is giving all creators 18 and over access to a tool that can detect whether their likeness has been copied and used in AI videos uploaded to the website. Known as deepfakes, these are AI-generated videos, images, or audio that make it look like someone said or did something they never actually said or did.

Team YouTube made an announcement, explaining that their "goal is to provide [users] with more peace of mind by giving [them] easy access to request the removal of unauthorized content." While their likeness detection tool is technically available only to creators, spokesperson Jack Malon said that anyone can use it.

The tool allows you to:
Identify where your likeness shows up.
Understand if others are using your face in videos made with AI.
Safeguard your identity by requesting removal of unauthorized content that uses your likeness directly in YouTube Studio.
Keep your viewers from being misled about you.

An AI model is trained on lots of real photos, videos, or audio of a person — the more data, the better the fake. Then, using techniques like generative adversarial networks (GANs) or diffusion models, the AI swaps faces, clones voices, or creates entirely new footage that mimics the person’s appearance, expressions, and voice. Modern tools can match lighting, lip movements, blinking, and even subtle mannerisms to make the result really convincing.

In a face swap, it replaces one person’s face with another face. A lip sync can change what someone appears to be saying
Voice cloning can copy someone’s voice from audio samples. What is known as full-body puppetry can control gestures and expressions and make a still photo “talk” and move.

Most articles about this technology are negative and point out risks, such as misinformation, non-consensual fake content, scams, identity fraud, and reputation damage.

If you do see positive uses, they will often not be called "deepfakes." The positive uses are still controversial but include the use of the technology in filmmaking, dubbing movies into other languages without reshoots, some accessibility tools, satire, education, and bringing historical figures “back to life.”

Some platforms like Meta's Facebook, Instagram, and Threads now label or remove certain deepfakes.

A well-known example of a deepfake is the 2018 fabricated video of former U.S. President Barack Obama created by comedian and director Jordan Peele. Using artificial intelligence, Peele superimposed his own voice and facial movements onto a digitally replicated face of Obama, successfully demonstrating how AI can be used to put words into anyone's mouth.

YouTube announcement at https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/434105667

Dependence Day - AI Hegemony

trkellers@cloudlocal.us (Tim Kellers) — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 02:42:00 +0000

Recent college graduates face technology conscription: the expectation to feed, train, and validate the very AI models designed to automate their future career paths.

The Flashpoint: Intellectual extraction and job devaluation. Graduates see AI corporations scraping human creativity, engineering, and writing without equitable compensation, creating an unstable economic future.
The Tipping Point: Instead of burning draft cards, modern graduates are engaging in digital resistance—refusing to apply to major AI firms, deploying data-poisoning tools to protect their portfolios, and organizing labor walkouts over algorithmic ethics.
The Split: A growing contingent of young professionals is choosing to boycott corporate AI completely. They are migrating to decentralized networks, open-source communities, and localized worker-owned tech collectives.

Direct Comparison: Two Historical Divorces

The table below breaks down how these two systemic walkouts contrast in their execution, motives, and final resolutions:

Feature	The 1969 YAF Split	The Recent College Grad / AI Split
Primary Catalyst	State conscription to fight the Vietnam War.	Economic displacement and automated exploitation.
Opposing Authority	Traditionalist, Cold War conservative leaders.	Big Tech executives and corporate venture capitalists.
Act of Defiance	Physically burning a draft card on the convention floor.	Data-poisoning, model boycotts, and refusing corporate recruitment.
Immediate Result	A literal walkout from the convention hall.	A refusal to enter the mainstream tech workforce pipeline.
Long-term Alternative	Founding the U.S. Libertarian Party and independent caucuses.	Building decentralized tech, localized cooperatives, and open-source models.

The Fundamental Contrast: Ideology vs. Survival

The core distinction between these two historic events lies in the nature of the stakes.

The 1969 split was primarily ideological and philosophical. The libertarians in YAF revolted because they refused to compromise their purist principles regarding individual liberty, free markets, and anti-interventionism. They were willing to forfeit their political capital within the broader conservative movement to maintain their philosophical purity.

Conversely, the current split between university graduates and AI firms is born out of material and economic survival. Graduates are not merely debating abstract theories of liberty in a convention hall; they are defending their literal livelihoods, the value of their degrees, and the ownership of their intellectual labor.

When the 1969 libertarians walked out under the St. Louis Gateway Arch, they did so to build a new political vehicle. When today's graduates walk away from AI tech corporations, they do so to build an alternative economy before the old one automates them out entirely.

Mythos and Fables Indeed

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 10:20:00 +0000

In April, the makers of Claude shared that the company's new AI model (Mythos 5) was too dangerous to release to the public. Weeks later, thanks to some tweaks, the new model (called Fable 5) was released to the public. Now, it has been announced that "Anthropic has suspended its powerful new AI model after US authorities raised security concerns just days following its public release."

I find some irony in these AI names. Mythos and Fables indeed.

MORE Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI suspended over security fears

Labeling AI-generated Videos on YouTube

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Fri, 29 May 2026 09:30:00 +0000

The headline reads "YouTube will now automatically label AI videos." But the question is HOW will they do that?

Via YouTube's blog, we find that since 2024, they have been labeling content when creators disclose they've used AI tools.

"Starting in May 2026, we’re rolling out new internal signals to help identify AI-generated content. If a creator doesn’t specify whether or not they used AI, but our systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now automatically apply a label. As this technology continues to improve, creators remain in control. If a creator thinks their content was incorrectly identified as AI-generated, they can update the disclosure status in YouTube Studio.
However, disclosures will remain permanent in a handful of cases, including:
Content created using YouTube’s own AI tools, like Veo or Dream Screen.
Content containing C2PA metadata indicating they were fully generative AI.
These changes are designed to balance transparency with creator control. It’s important to note that a disclosure label alone does not change how a video is recommended or whether it’s eligible to earn money."

In addition to its policing of AI content, the company has been investing in AI for things like its interactive search feature, Ask YouTube, a playlist generator for YouTube Music, AI video summaries, and other generative AI creation tools.

Of course, there is a YouTube video about this.

Your AI Is Not Free

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:49:00 +0000

The phrase that if an app is free, you are the product means that when an app doesn’t charge you money, it usually makes money from you instead. They do that mainly by collecting your data or selling your attention to advertisers.

If that is true, then how is AI changing what that means? It is a question that deserves several posts here to really answer.

Your behavior, preferences, and time become what is being monetized. Your data becomes the product. Free apps often gather your demographics, browsing or in-app behavior, location, interests, and habits. This information is then used to target ads or sold to third parties.

The addictive nature of app design keeps you scrolling, tapping, or watching so they can show you ads. You pay with time, not dollars. “Free” is a business model, not a gift.

I will give these companies a nod that running an app costs money (servers, engineers, storage). If you are not paying, the company must earn revenue another way. Ad-free options are becoming more common as a premium. You have probably noticed that on apps and also on video streaming services. You thought that paying for Amazon Prime meant no ads on the videos. Wrong. Free is often an illusion.

In the world of AI, the difference between free and paid tiers is more than a matter of convenience. It is also about identity and privacy.

Privacy becomes the hidden cost. Data is currency. Companies track you across apps and devices, build detailed behavioral profiles, and use algorithms to influence what you see. This raises concerns about autonomy and consent.

Is there no stopping them? As long as you agree to their terms, they have a lot of power. BUT you can read those terms and privacy settings more carefully. (They rely on the fact that many users don't read the terms or adjust their settings at all.) Educate yourself and understand how digital ecosystems make money. You can choose paid or privacy-focused alternatives. And you can remove the app entirely from your life.

I see comparisons of using AI to using social media platforms. I don't think AI data is the same as social media data. Social media platforms monetize your attention. The longer you scroll, the more ads they can show. AI chatbots operate on a different axis. Your prompts aren’t just content; they’re training signals. They reveal how people think, what they struggle with, what they’re curious about, and how they phrase questions. Maybe it is anonymized (a good thing) but it is still valuable and often sensitive data.

Alarmist articles will remind you that many free AI chatbots use your prompts, your corrections, and your uploaded files. They have that photo of your family that you let them enhance. What will they do with what you give them? I can't answer that as of now, and certainly not for the future. I know that your conversation history is used to train or fine-tune future versions of the model. Hey, you are part of the product pipeline - but don't expect to be paid for your contributions.

I also concede that the business model matters and that different AI companies monetize differently. For example, Microsoft provides its own privacy commitments and policies, and those govern how your data is handled. For details, they always direct users to their Privacy Statement.

Here are 4 business models currently out there:
Ad-supported = Your attention is monetized.
Freemium = Free tier gathers usage; paid tier subsidizes development.
Enterprise licensing = Your data may be isolated; the company earns from businesses.
Open source = The model is free; the company may sell hosting or support.

So "if an app is free, you are the product" still applies, but not always in the same way. When an AI tool is free, you’re not just the product — you’re also the collaborator. You’re an unpaid teacher, tester, and a source of fuel for improvement.

Unplugging From Online Addiction

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:24:00 +0000

This week, you probably saw headlines like "Meta and YouTube designed addictive products that harmed young people," as a jury in Los Angeles awarded the plaintiff damages of $6 million, with Meta to pay 70% and YouTube the remainder

We are all plugged in to the electronic web around us that is far larger than the World Wide Web. That feeling of being unable to unplug is incredibly common and results from a powerful combination of psychological triggers, clever product design, and the essential role technology plays in modern life. "Addiction" is a strong word in this context, but it is the operative word in these kinds of cases.

Don't feel like you are "weak" or lack willpower if you find it difficult to disconnect. These systems are scientifically optimized to maximize your engagement. The core reason for compulsive checking is a chemical reaction in your brain centered on dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, motivation, and reward-seeking.

Social media and even email platforms use the same psychological principle that makes slot machines and video games addictive. You don't know when the next "win" will appear. That could be a "like," a validating comment, an alert, or an email from someone "important." Are any of these really important? Maybe - and that possibility mixed in with that famous Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) is powerful. It compels you to keep checking.

Designers know they need apps and websites to be addictive. I can list some of these techniques, and you can take them as things to be conscious of and avoid. You could also use it as a designer to create an addictive app or website. These things are intentionally engineered as features that make it easy to lose track of time and difficult to stop.

One of those techniques is using infinite scroll, which eliminates natural stopping cues (like the bottom of a page). The content just keeps loading, encouraging endless consumption. |

Push notifications hijack your attention and create a sense of immediate urgency or curiosity, pulling you back into the app regardless of what you were doing.

Autoplay on videos and content streams automatically transitions you to the next item, removing the moment you would have had to make a conscious choice to continue or stop.

As I said earlier, many techniques used in gaming are used in the gamification of other apps. You might not think of things like streaks, badges or LinkedIn profile completeness bars create a feeling of required daily attendance to avoid losing progress or status.

Most of these are psychological traps. FoMO and the social validation of likes and shares, and positive comments tap directly into our fundamental need for social acceptance and validation.

Do you ever find yourself waiting in line, standing on the train, or during a commercial break, checking your phone? That instant, low-effort stimulation. is a form of addiction.

It's true that technology is no longer optional. We need it for much of our communication and work. We crave constant connectivity. Some jobs demand constant email and instant messaging availability. The lines between work and personal time have been blurring for at least two decades. We need directions (maps), banking, tickets, appointments, and emergency communications from our digital devices. That new reality seems to make a complete disconnect feel irresponsible, unsafe, and maybe impossible.

But I don't think it is hopeless. The solution is not to throw away devices or turn off your cell service and WiFi or have more willpower. Advice from "experts" is to create friction between yourself and the addictive features. Only allow notifications for direct calls, texts, and genuinely critical applications. Designate specific times (like the first hour of the day, mealtimes, or the hour before bed) and locations (the bedroom, the dinner table) as completely device-free. Remove the most addictive social media apps from your phone, or move them off the home screen and turn off those badges and notification sounds that remind you that there are 3 new somethings on Instagram.

The Australia Social Media Ban

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 21:29:00 +0000

Australia implemented a world-first nationwide ban on social media access for children under 16, effective December 10, 2025. The law, passed in November 2024 under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, requires major platforms to take "reasonable steps" to prevent users under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. This includes age verification methods like behavioral inference (analyzing online activity), facial age estimation (e.g., via selfies), ID uploads, or linking bank details.

Millions of accounts are expected to be affected as companies, such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, and X, face fines of up to $33M for serious or repeated noncompliance. The law places responsibility on companies rather than families, and platforms must demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps,” such as implementing age checks and removing suspected underage accounts.

The measure is cast as a child-protection and mental health safeguard, citing research showing 96% of 10- to 15-year-olds use social media, with many encountering harmful content, grooming, or cyberbullying. Critics say the law is difficult to enforce. It may even push teens onto harder-to-monitor platforms. Another criticism is that it may pose privacy risks.

Read the research from Australia used to create this ban
https://www.esafety.gov.au/research/the-online-experiences-of-children-in-australia/report-digital-use-and-risk-among-children-aged-10-to-15

Other countries have taken similar steps, such as strict youth modes or time limits.
https://studyinternational.com/news/countries-social-media-ban-children/

Australia’s Nationwide Ban on Social Media for Children Under 16

ronkowitz@gmail.com (Kenneth Ronkowitz) — Fri, 17 Oct 2025 14:54:00 +0000

Australia’s nationwide ban on social media use for children under 16 takes effect today, making it the first country to prohibit underage users from major platforms outright. It is a noble and probably necessary thing, but I cannot believe it is doable.

Millions of accounts are expected to be affected as companies, such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, and X, face fines of up to $33M for serious or repeated noncompliance. However, the law places responsibility on companies rather than families, and platforms must demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps," such as implementing age checks and removing suspected underage accounts.

I suspect the companies will say these things have already been put in place. (Have you noticed the increase in ads on TV and in your Instagram feed about their teen accounts?) And how will Australia monitor this? Critics say the law is difficult to enforce. It might push teens onto harder-to-monitor platforms. Enforcement may pose privacy risks. We know that many children who create accounts have already lied about their age. Can that be determined?

The research shows 96% of children aged 10 to 15 had used social media, and a majority had used a communication platform to chat, message, call, or video call others (94%). Anecdotally. many of them report encountering harmful content, grooming, or cyberbullying.

Australia may have been the first country to pass a social media ban bill to stop children under 16 from accessing the platforms, but 7 other countries have taken similar steps, such as strict youth modes or time limits.
https://studyinternational.com/news/countries-social-media-ban-children/
Read/download the Australian research report
https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/Digital-use-and-risk-Online-platform-engagement-10-to-15.pdf