[ReactiveJelly]

The dystopian part is that they're testing a CV feature that has enough capacity to watch tons of streams constantly, and they don't _need_ your permission to run it. One would hope this will put the "haha my FBI agent must be bored I'm not worth it nothing to hide :)" fools in their place

[dingnuts]

something scary the "my FBI agent" people probably don't think about is that "their FBI agent" might not even be born yet, because they're putting all this stuff out into the public record to be analyzed who knows, maybe thirty years from now by an unimaginable regime by some "kid" (who's 30, and you're 50 or 60) that doesn't have an inkling of understanding or care for what was socially acceptable 30 years ago

[jdiff]

Good thing the FBI isn't in the business of policing social acceptability.

[_chu1]

We didn't think the NSA was in the business of international unwarranted surveillance until they were

[jdiff]

You could apply that reasoning to any random claim regardless of veracity.

[ericmcer]

The AI is just automating something they could hire an army of humans to do though, twitch usually has ~80k streams running, so it would take a few thousand workers but there would be no privacy blockers.

They do have your permission to run it, as soon as you start live streaming yourself you are giving anyone with the internet permission to access that data.

[Double_a_92]

Why would they need a permission to watch something that you are publicly streaming?

[8organicbits]

Consider the difference between noticing someone you happen to pass on the street and following that person with a video camera every time they are outside. Corporation should not continuously monitor people, even in public spaces.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

This isn't really a very good comparison.

It's difficult to simply live life and never, ever be in a public space.

No one has to publicly stream on Twitch or other services. If someone wants to broadcast video but do it privately, there are ways to do that.

It might be a small stage for a small streamer, but turning that stream on still means you're getting up on a stage, and you are implicitly accepting that you'll be watched. It's a choice to put yourself out there.

[ribosometronome]

Streamers are explicitly broadcasting themselves, though. They are the camera following themselves around.

[euazOn]

Yes. Related to the difference between “available” and “easily accessible” - a lot of information about e.g. politicians may be freely available, but it usually doesn’t make a difference unless a journalist makes it easily accessible.

[azinman2]

Everything you do online is tracked. Too late.

[zamadatix]

It's never too late to have a stance on something. Actually it's quite difficult to do things the other way around.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Your comment and many others like it make me wonder if you people even know what Twitch is.

[8organicbits]

I'm aware, I used to watch streams. Some of the comments suggest that publicly broadcast information is fair game for large scale, corporate sponsored data mining. The existence of such data mining has a chilling effect, causing people who may wish to broadcast to avoid it. Example are elsewhere in the thread.

[Double_a_92]

Yeah they make it sound like Twitch installed hidden webcams in everyones bedroom or something...

[verdverm]

There is a difference between watching a person in a public space and watching someone who is purposely broadcasting themself to the world