Science/Techno Babble Random, Random

[ti-amie]

Jan. 14, 2025, 12:09 PM EST; Updated: Jan. 14, 2025, 3:37 PM EST
Meta Lawyer Lemley Quits AI Case Citing Zuckerberg 'Descent' (1)

Kyle Jahner

Stanford professor still backs Meta AI position, but not CEO
LinkedIn post decries ‘toxic masculinity,’ ‘Neo-Nazi madness’

California attorney Mark Lemley dropped Meta Platforms Inc. as a client in a high-profile copyright case because of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” the Stanford University professor said on LinkedIn.

Lemley said in a Monday post he still believes Meta to be “on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute,” but that he “cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.” Zuckerberg has generated controversy in recent days by ending diversity initiatives at the social media giant and ending fact-checking on Facebook posts while expounding the benefits of “masculine energy.”

With Lemley’s exit, attorneys from Cooley LLP and Cleary Gottleib Steen & Hamilton are defending Meta in a pivotal lawsuit from authors alleging that using their works to train AI constitutes copyright infringement. The consolidated case now includes plaintiff writers ranging from comedian Sarah Silverman, writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, politician Mike Huckabee, and novelist Richard Kadrey.

Lemley had represented Meta as a partner for Lex Lumina LLP, a firm largely made up of other academics focusing on IP, First Amendment, antitrust, and adjacent fields. The influential scholar has authored 11 books and was the third-most cited scholar in the world from 2016 to 2020, according to his Stanford bio. He’s also argued dozens of appellate cases and participated in more than three dozen US Supreme Court cases as counsel or amicus, including the Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case in which the justices reined in what can constitute “transformation” in fair use analyses.

At issue in Meta’s case is whether creators of artificial intelligence infringe by having their models learn from copyrighted works, regardless of the output. Creators say AI companies unfairly profit from their work without having to pay for it, often relying on depositories of works on pirated sites. But those claiming AI is fair use argue that any one work out of millions has little impact on the model or its outputs, and that having to pay for every work used would stifle development of a paradigm-changing technology.

Lemley, the director of Stanford Law’s program in law, science and technology, formally withdrew Monday from the case in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, according to a docket entry.

Lemley also said he’d deactivated his account on Threads—Facebook’s Twitter-like microblog—and will refrain from clicking ads on Facebook to deny Meta commissions on his purchases. While he considered quitting Facebook, he said, “it doesn’t seem fair I should lose” the connections it facilitates for him “because Zuckerberg is having a mid-life crisis.”

Meta and Lemley didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The CEO cited free speech concerns including pressure from President Joe Biden to censor Covid-related content—which he noted in an Aug. 26 letter to Congress. But critics said the recent changes open the door wider to hate speech in an already often-contentious forum.

Zuckerberg also told podcaster Joe Rogan in an interview that he wants to create a welcoming environment and for women to succeed, but “a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.”

The case is Kadrey v. Meta Platforms Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:23-cv-03417, notice of withdrawal 1/13/25.

(Updates with additional information on Lemley in fourth paragraph. A previous version corrected the spelling of Zuckerberg in the first paragraph.)

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/me ... rg-descent

[ti-amie]

Not any meteor shower I've ever seen but okay...

[Suliso]

You might wonder why the colors. Because it was just a fraction past sunset and the fragments up at 100 km still iluminated.

[ti-amie]

Tik Tok went dark midnight China time and caught a lot of folks by surprise.

Kat Tenbarge
‪@kattenbarge.bsky.social‬

Just a reminder of some of the context around the TikTok ban: In 2020, Trump tried to ban it via executive order a couple months after K-pop fans used it to organize fake signups to Trump’s Tulsa rally, which led him to publicly overestimate how large the crowd size would be.

Republicans in Congress in particular had been trying for years to move against TikTok because of its Chinese parent company. In late 2023-early 2024, while TikTok was used to channel massive pro-Palestinian sentiment, a serious bipartisan congressional effort organized to ban it.

That law passed and Biden signed it in April 2024. But both he and Trump joined TikTok to campaign for the presidency, and Trump said he had changed his mind about the app. Biden’s admin didn’t change its tune, despite using the app, until a couple days ago.

Trump also stopped posting on TikTok the day he won the election in 2024. But TikTok saw Trump as its only pathway to continue existing in the U.S. CEO Shou Chew met with Trump and showed him how successful he was on the app. Chew was invited to the inauguration.

TikTok has leaned even heavier on its open support of Trump now that the ban is going into effect. And it’s worth noting that while TikTok was originally used to embarrass Trump in 2020, he became more popular on the app in 2024 than any other U.S. politician.

There has been bipartisan flip-flopping, hypocrisy, and ulterior motives when it comes to TikTok, with the (current) end result that the app is now being openly used to promote Trump to as many as 170 million Americans as he prepares to take office.

Should the Democrats have seen this coming? Well, lots of people have been screaming that this was going to happen. So they certainly could have figured it out in advance. But remember, most of the political power players involved don’t really understand social media. Trump included.

We’re in a dangerous time when it comes to social media. When it’s good, it’s great. But we’ve seen it weaponized to further anti-democratic agendas, while the people at the wheel to stop it don’t even understand what’s going on. We’re at the mercy of a toppling house of cards.

Also, my prediction, FWIW: Now that the path to “save TikTok” is in Trump’s hands, I have started to think my “worst case scenario” back of mind thought is more likely. Which is that we get an “Elon Musk buys Twitter” situation with a much bigger and more influential platform.

[patrick]

Mr Delay is wishy washy as usual

[ponchi101]

Elon will not buy Tik Tok. The Chinese will not sell it to him.

[Suliso]

There are rumors that he wants to buy Intel.

[ti-amie]

The Biden Administration said this whole thing was a stunt...



And there are always receipts.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

https://www.the-independent.com/tech/in ... 84253.html

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

He did not buy TWT for the financial benefits. He bought it for the political power he achieved with it.
I know, I know, I know. I dislike the guy as well as anybody else. But this constant litany that he is a bad businessman is dull. The results speak for themselves. He is the richest man in the world, and now he has the president of the USA in his pocket. Not dumb at all.

[ti-amie]