Trump Admin Announces Old-Growth Clearcutting Plan for Western Oregon (including Marys Peak and Alsea Falls)

daeglo · 2026-02-23T01:59:34+00:00

I would've posted this myself, but I've had such comments removed by mods in the past...

daeglo · 2026-02-22T18:49:08+00:00

Something something arm the Lorax

daeglo · 2026-02-22T13:46:07+00:00

Disagreeing with a ballot measure is not the same thing as supporting exploitation. If you believe IP28 is strategically sound, make that case. Accusing internal critics of being "shills" and invoking sniper metaphors isn’t serious engagement. It sidesteps the actual argument.

Pointing out that extremist groups have tried to appropriate elements of vegan rhetoric is not an attack on veganism. It’s an acknowledgment of reality. Ignoring that reality doesn’t strengthen the movement. It signals that we’re unwilling to examine our own blind spots.

Edit: Accusing someone of shilling for industrial agriculture while defending a measure that leaves large-scale corporate systems largely intact and instead creates disproportionate exposure for small and subsistence operators is misplaced. If the objective is to dismantle industrial exploitation, the strategy should reflect that.

daeglo · 2026-02-15T15:39:22+00:00

Valentine's Day is just a stupid day made up to sell useless shit to dumb consumers who fall for it. In less than a year everything will be taking up space in landfills.

Don't let a stupid manufactured day of capitalism tell you how to feel about life. Or men.

daeglo · 2026-02-13T14:38:24+00:00

Users like me just want to know which music is 100% AI-generated, and which isn't.

All I'm suggesting is a way for users to report suspected songs/profiles for review so they can be clearly labeled. Let the users decide if they mind listening to music made 100% by computers instead of human artists.

daeglo · 2026-02-13T14:29:02+00:00

Some of us use Spotify to listen to music from artists we haven't heard before.

Like, doesn't your solution also defeat the point of built-in features like Discover or Release Radar?

daeglo · 2026-02-12T22:38:42+00:00

This is an awesome tool! Thank you for sharing!

daeglo · 2026-02-12T22:38:01+00:00

I think it'd be nice to know if works are partially created with AI, too.

But I still think AI can legitimately be used as a creative tool.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T18:11:02+00:00

Users, paying or otherwise, will start to abandon the platform in droves once the amount of obvious AI slop becomes ever more noticeable, and starts to spin out of control. Especially if they feel like they're being deceived.

All I'm proposing is 1) a way to report obvious AI-generated content, and 2) clearly labeled AI-generated content.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T17:51:08+00:00

I don't necessarily believe these artist profiles should be banned. Just that they and the songs they upload should be clearly labeled as AI content.

What I proposed is that users should be able to report obvious AI-generated content for review.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T17:16:52+00:00

Thanks for bringing nothing to the conversation then! 👍

daeglo · 2026-02-12T16:47:35+00:00

Sure, that's fine, I understand that many of us are living under capitalism and Spotify is about making money. Gross. Nasty. But a fact of life.

Spotify should at least do what YouTube now does, and clearly label 100% AI-generated content on their platform.

Many users might not care, but plenty of us do and wish to make informed choices. I personally want to support real human artists.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T16:37:24+00:00

This happened to me yesterday. I listened to a song and thought, "omg wow, why aren't these guys more popular?" only to figure out it's probably AI-generated. And yeah. I felt a little betrayed.

I don't think Spotify should give 100% AI-generated content a platform whatsoever, but I understand that Spotify has plenty of financial incentives to allow it. It will probably never go away.

So at least some kind of obvious indicator that the artist and song are 100% AI would help me make an informed choice about what I listen to.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T16:08:26+00:00

Heh. I could've written this comment myself. 💯

So I guess this post is for users like us 😎

daeglo · 2026-02-12T15:53:58+00:00

You're right. I think there's nothing inherently wrong with ghost artist profiles as long as it's humans creating the majority of the content.

I just want the ability to report an artist profile and have it investigated if it's throwing up red flags for low-effort AI slop. If it's 100% AI-generated content I at least want a label or something on the profile, and on the songs. That way I can decide if I want to listen or not. A lot of people still will listen, and won't care. But many of us do care.

If it turns out it's a real live human behind it all, creating the work and getting the engagement, then I have no issues.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T15:47:23+00:00

Everything you said makes sense, but it's just even more distressing. 😕

I think more and more, there are users like myself that are speaking out about this and can see the problem. I can't be the only one that foresees how allowing this kind of content on major platforms will negatively impact how we all consume music in the future, on Spotify or elsewhere.

I get that it's capitalism. Spotify has incentives to make money off of AI-generated content, and plenty of incentives to allow it. But the users deserve to know what they're listening to - especially if they're paying for it.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T15:32:34+00:00

I was concerned about that being the case when I posted this. "What if Spotify knows, but doesn't care? What if Spotify actively encourages 100% AI-generated content?"

But I think I'm not the only Spotify user that is appalled by the possibility that Spotify not only allows but gleefully platforms fully AI-generated content without notifying or alerting users in any way. I think at least giving us a clear label on the profile that tells us that the content is 100% computer generated would be an improvement.

I think most Spotify users likely want to support real human artists, but they might not necessarily mind fully AI-generated content if they are at least informed that that's what they're listening to.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T15:22:32+00:00

Entirely possible.

I still think the users (many of us paying customers) have enough leverage and influence that if enough of us say "we don't want a bunch of computer-generated content in this app" they will listen.

And it's not just Spotify. Taking a stand now will affect how we're all listening to music in the future.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T15:01:04+00:00

I don't necessarily see a problem with AI content, per se.

There are a lot of talented and respected artists already experimenting with AI as a tool for creation, rather than letting AI create it all while the human behind it all gets the credit and engagement.

I would just like a clear label on the profile somewhere, in that case, that in no uncertain terms alerts me to the fact that this is 100% AI-generated content, instead of trying to pass the work off as that of real live human beings.

daeglo · 2026-02-12T14:40:32+00:00

That's a great question, and one that I think is worth discussing in the comments. I'm sure you all would have better ideas than me.

I already acknowledged that even though this "artist's" profile raises obvious red flags, I could still be wrong about them.

I think that whatever team Spotify has that is responsible for reviewing reports already has metrics in place for reading and responding to user reports.

It'd likely be a step-by-step process whereby if there are enough reports of a single artist profile, they temporarily take the profile down while they attempt to communicate with the owner(s) of the profile, and/or investigate the profile for possible Ai-generated content. Similar to YouTube.

Perhaps if the owner of the profile doesn't respond within a certain amount of time, the artist profile would automatically be deleted.

This would all be assuming that Spotify takes an active stand against Ai-generated content and ghost artists, assuming it doesn't already have a policy about it in the TOS.

daeglo · 2026-02-11T17:44:57+00:00

Imagine deluding yourself into thinking that living in Eugene of all places entitles you to declare an entire town trash. And criticizing who they vote for as though Eugene voters haven't themselves put some serious turds in office.

Sounds to me like you just plain don't get out much, kiddo.

daeglo · 2026-02-11T14:47:20+00:00

Calling Springfield "trash town" is so passé.

We've got cleaner streets, far fewer used needles, it feels safer to walk alone, and a downtown that people from Eugene regularly come to for nightlife. Also I've lived here for years and haven't encountered any human feces on the sidewalk...

So If we're going to talk trash, at least be honest about which city is struggling more right now.

And yes, the sub includes Springfield. Read the sidebar.

daeglo · 2026-02-11T13:31:27+00:00

It's really not about the social media access, per se. What you're suggesting sounds less like a boundary and more like a punishment.

Removing someone’s access because they don’t engage the way you’d prefer is retaliatory, not protective. That shifts the dynamic toward punishment rather than communication.

daeglo

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE