I read a bit of it. And while I understand the desire to get away from folks on the internet being harassing. That is the problem of the internet right now. I’d be remiss to say that if I had a thin skin, Tucson.social would be a lot harder to run. I’m not excusing the meanness of the internet when I say this, after all, it’s one of tucson.social’s goal to deal with that. It’s just a pragmatic fact.
There’s also the fact that the Creator has no desire to hand this off. I understand that is work. And that I am not entitled to their work. However, it seems to perform a defeatist narrative. Which just doesn’t feel constructive.
I’m in no way trying to be mean.
It’s just that this Creator is coming across as “taking his/her/their ball and leaving.” It kind of makes it harder for the community to pick up where they left off. No platform, no code base. And I think it’s fair to criticize that. It comes across as “returning the meanness they received and redirecting it at people with good intentions”.
I’m the type of person who is well resourced enough to pick this up and continue. Had I known about this project earlier, I might have been pitching in this entire time. But reading these posts now make me feel pretty unwelcome at least in that capacity.
I too am optimistic about community picking up where they left off. It’s just that it’s a lot harder to do when there’s not even ashes to rebuild from.
I’m sure the Creator is a good person. And I have no ill will against them. But I am a little bit upset that what they built will be lost in entirety.
I think, going forward, open source will be a requirement for any sort of platform like this for me. I just don’t want to be forced to lose something good because the Creator has made that decision for me.
But to your point, I probably shouldn’t have called them an ass.
As an aside, I think you shouldn’t be recommending this site. If it’s going to shut down, then what is the point of learning about this? There certainly isn’t any ability to swoop in and try to keep it going. I hope the existing user base enjoys the sunset celebration! But as a new user it just doesn’t make sense.
Well, in the cases that I saw documented it happened in one of two ways.
Spotify assumes a record label submits good faith information. Many of these impersonation attempts come from “brand new” lables like “Gupta Music” and such. Since they are in the system as a label, it’s more permissive and Spotify generally assumes that it’s not their place to ask why a Band using one label is suddenly using another. These are the worst offenders and actually impersonate real artists.
Another approach that’s been reported is to not actually impersonate the artist, but to confuse the user that this is the artist visually. Take for example, The Weeknd - AI artists might upload a band named “Weeknd” or “The Weekend” or some other similar permutation - banking on genre similarity to get the algorithm to present you the song and hoping that you don’t notice the misspelling. These are still bad, but a bit less so since I can usually find the real band page for the “right” info.
I echo xuxxun’s feedback here, the newest bands often lack any sort of presence - especially with their first single or EP. A notable one back when they first released was Apocalypse Orchestra - basically ZERO info on the artist except for a newly created facebook page with no images or anything. Obviously that changed in just a few short months. It’s definitely not a method that would reliably sort AI from Human - but I do agree that it’s more likely to catch the AI stuff.