Yes indeed, and also the title promise - I looked forward to read how the personal blogs are back, only to discover the author didnt provide any evidence, but not even examples. Maybe they are indeed back, if we count Substack newsletter archive as a "personal blog".
OpenAI has seemingly done everything they can to put publishers in a position to make this demand, and they've certainly not done anything to make it impossible for them to respond to it. Is there a better, more privacy minded way for NYT to get the data they need? Probably, I'm not smart enough to understand all the things that go into such a decision. But I know I don't view them as the villain for asking, and I also know I don't view OpenAI as some sort of guardian of my or my data's best interests.
But that vault can contain conversation between me and chatgpt, which I willingly did, but with the expectation that only openai has access to it. Why should some lawyer working for NYT have access to it? OpenAI is precisely correct, no matter what other motives could be there.
> We may use Personal Data for the following purposes: [...] To comply with legal obligations and to protect the rights, privacy, safety, or property of our users, OpenAI, or third parties.
OpenAI outright says it will give your conversations to people like lawyers.
If you thought they wouldn't give it out to third parties, you not only have not read OpenAI's privacy policy, you've not read any privacy policy from a big tech company (because all of them are basically maximalist "your privacy is important, we'll share your data only with us and people who we deem worthy of it, which turns out to be everybody.")
> but with the expectation that only openai has access to it
You can argue about "the expectation" of privacy all you want, but this is completely detached from reality. My assumption is that almost no third parties I share information with have magic immunity that prevents the information from being used in a legal action involving them.
Maybe my doctor? Maybe my lawyer? IANAL but I'm not even confident in those. If I text my friend saying their party last night was great and they're in court later and need to prove their whereabouts that night, I understand that my text is going to be used as evidence. That might be a private conversation, but it's not my data when I send it to someone else and give them permission to store it forever.
Listen, man, I willingly did that murder, but with the expectation that no one would know about it, except the victim. Why should some lawyer working for the government have access to it?
Another direction is that more and more content is directly put on social media. I found I am visiting websites less and less, I even dont care about ad blockers anymore (YT is an exception).
And that why every subscription service end up having ads after a while (with the ad-free version being promoted to a more expensive tier, or disappearing altogether).
Because all that scepticism, non-support etc. are like small micro-defeats that will suck the life energy. Not to mention all those taxes which sucks money energy. :-) But the deeper reason I see in in Europe is that everything is biased towards big and old, and not new and small.
>But what is lacking is some kind of large European tech journalism
Yes, even when tech media in europe would want to hype the original OP startup, they are not that influential in general. I follow tech news daily but all of them are U.S. media, there is nothing comparable here.
