And people will get accustomed to (i.e. not take seriously) these new AI-generated images like they have with photoshopped images.
"Ethicists" act like society will somehow not adapt to this tech like they have with all the tech that came before it. I put ethicists in quotes because the arguments they use don't hold up to scrutiny and don't seem to be motivated by real ethical concerns. At least not to me.
And what if the Internet Archive falls victim to this disease and decide to self-censor? What next?
The precedent of books being illegal has already been set in many countries. Now all that is missing is the political will to have them banned (and at the rate things are deteriorating, I expect this will come sooner rather than later).
I'm not doubting your (or your sibling's) claims, but I find it extremely difficult to imagine any older person preferring a virtual keyboard to voice messages (provided they are properly introduced to the feature, of course). Maybe this preference stems from how simple telegram (the app we use) makes taking and hearing voice messages? Perhaps it really is a regional thing after all. We need more data.
From my anecdotal/regional experience, people over 60 prefer to use voice messages almost exclusively while younger people prefer to text.
Maybe someone at telegram or whatsapp can provide statistical data to shed more light on voice message usage.
> federated systems [..] have a lot of failure points
They sure do, but you also have access to all the parts needed to maintain your own instance and so does everyone else. Failures, when they happen, are limited to instance who aren't "functioning perfectly" instead of extending to every user of a centralized system.
Just to keep everyone reading this thread on the same page: The point of failure being discussed here is the human factor. See comment ancestors for context.
Rubber hoses still exist. I think GP was trying to correctly point out that having a single point of failure is a weakness in any system, cryptographic or otherwise.
Do you message older people? I interact with multiple and they find audio messages to be indispensable. (Who can blame them when recording a voice message is vastly easier than getting your glasses and typing out a message on a small screen with even beady on-screen buttons). In addition to old people, I also message a disabled person to whom speech and recorded messages are her primary mode of communication.
In short, I don't think it's regional. It depends on the person with whom you need to communicate.
I think my anecdotal experience with getting casual users to switch to Element might be helpful to you:
I am a member of a social group that varies widly in age and technical experience. When I tried switching two of our members over to Element, I noticed them quickly growing upset with the app because the found it to be missing key features they expected like easily recording audio messages or the visual seperation of messages that are more than a few minutes apart.
From my personal experience with switching people from one chat app to another, people expect a replacement app to:
1. have 1:1 feature parity with the app it's replacing,
2. display all the information they've grown to rely upon,
3. and both feel and work like the app it's replacing. (even cosmetic things like text bubbles and larger font sizes)
Failing the first two points lead to the immediate dismissal of the app. Failing the last point is seen as a deficiency in the new app. Inversely, succeeding in all three leads to smooth adoption. It is why all my group is using telegram right now instead of whatsapp.
I'll have another go at switching my group to Element when/if the app gains the ability to send audio messages, but without Element looking and feeling similar its compition, I'm skeptical of my chances to succeed.
By the way, I really like Matrix and appreciate the hard work and care you're putting into this project. Thank you and keep up the good work.
"Ethicists" act like society will somehow not adapt to this tech like they have with all the tech that came before it. I put ethicists in quotes because the arguments they use don't hold up to scrutiny and don't seem to be motivated by real ethical concerns. At least not to me.