> ... what that means in practice is that Google is (indirectly) using > sweatshop labour to train their machine learning systems.
Yep. No need to get their hands dirty. The economic system does the job for them. > If it's wrong when > Nike and the Gap and Apple do it, it's wrong when Google do it, even if they > do it in a way that gives them plausible deniability. Unfortunately, it seems that most people don't have a problem with those companies doing it either. Apple fans in particular seem capable of pushing any information to the back of their minds to keep feeling proud of their shiny status symbol. > It would be an amazing expose if a journalist could find evidence that > Google is complicit in the operation of these sweatshops and the whole > anti-spam thing is just a cover ... It would, but given how many people I've spoken to are able to rationalize this[1] I am not optimistic that such a discovery would hurt Google. > The only way we're going to get rid > of captchas is happen is if someone develops a workable replacement based on > tricking bots into revealing they are bots, as described here: > http://ezinearticles.com/?Captchas-Considered-Harmful---Why-Captchas-Are-Bad-And-How-You-Can-Do-Better&id=1104207 Trisquel does not have a significant problem with spam, presumably due to the email approval process, but tricking the bot into revealing it is not human would certainly be more convenient. I didn't mind waiting a few hours for approval to join the Trisquel forum, but for people who like to post one-off comments on a news site or something I can see this being too inconvenient.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
