How to Meaningfully Oppose "AI"...

Most people realise that lobbyists operate by spinning an agenda to the government. But few realise that those self-same lobbyists also use a wall of public-facing propaganda to steer us away from doing likewise. If the public did what lobbyists do, rather than what lobbyists say, lobbying would not work.

Ah yes, the lobbyists. Always there, chipping away at your human rights. But do you know who they are? Some people imagine lobbyists as invisibles who only surface at private functions. Others, tricked by their disguise, see them as allies, and don't notice their dark agenda at all. Let's find out who the lobbyists really are, and how widespread public opposition to "AI" is being airbrushed out of the picture as an epic, multi-billion dollar propaganda and censorship machine perverts democracy...

---

WHO'S LOBBYING FOR "AI"?

For maximum effectiveness, a lobbyist needs a public face, lawyers on tap, hotlines to both press and politicians, and the ability to spin a corporate-serving agenda as a public right - to the public itself, as well as to authority. By nature of them having public faces, we know lobbyists a lot better than we imagine. Their trick is to hide in plain sight, coming in with a pretext which persuades the public that they're there for another purpose. Chances are you know the most powerful tech industry lobbyists by name. You just don't consider them to be tech industry lobbyists.

So who are these highly visible, two-faced corporate agents? Well, what if I told you that your "good friends" the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are aggressive lobbyists for the tech elite - masquerading as public rights advocates while they slyly campaign and litigate for the prosperity of "AI"? In fact, the EFF has had a key role in blocking almost every protective law that was drafted to restrain the tech elite but never passed into the statute. That's what they're there for. Everything else is theatre.

Because these Silicon Valley NGOs are so accomplished in playing the public rights card, many people, even when expressly told, have refused to believe that Big Tech lobbyists like the EFF and Mozilla are mobilising against the public to accommodate an elite corporate agenda. But don't you think that if these nonprofitalist NGOs were campaigning for our rights, we'd actually have some? Au contraire; we've continually lost rights to tech giants, and when it comes to dealing with the control-freak monsters of Surveillance Valley, we don't have any rights left.

Governments have discovered a new way to legalise corporate abuses which would never gain democratic consent. Retain the regulation; call off the enforcement. That's why you now have to sue a privacy regulator into even pretending to do its job.

Tech giants can steal from you, extort you for data, force you to give them biometrics by proxy of your boss, force you to carry a surveillance bug... The law is not preventing any of this extreme corporate violence. You have no protection at all against a situation where your boss tells you:

"Provide Microsoft with your face scans / fingerprints or you don't have a job".

And no Silicon Valley "digital rights campaigner" has ever lobbied or litigated against this evil on behalf of a member of the public. They've never opposed mass account seizures which illegally remove the public's right to access their personal data . They're silent on the organised disenfranchisement and persecution of people who don't have a mobile phone. On illegal data extortion practices like demanding mobile phone numbers with menaces. In fact, if you search the word "extortion" for the EFF's site, you find a wall of results, but not a single one of them applies the term to the behaviour of a tech giant. Indeed, filter out "copyright" "troll" and "patent" "troll" and the wall of results reduces to three. Which encapsulates the knackeringly repetitive focus of these NGOs:

• Grind down intellectual property law so Big Tech can steal at will. And that's a pro-"AI" stance ^{[Propaganda Warning]}. Not anti.

Corporate-funded mouthpieces like the EFF are not serving us. They are TECH INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS DISGUISED AS PUBLIC INTEREST BODIES.

I'll now set this into context, because if we're to oppose the corporate robbery known as "AI" in any way at all, it's vital that we first recognise who's working for whom, and oppose the propagandists and lobbyists as well as the giant tech brands they really work for.

---

PRELIMINARIES: PROPAGANDA-IMMUNITY

"AI assistants" are a licence to perpetrate unprecedented corporate evil. That's why the propaganda behind them is so wild.

"AI"'s adoption drive is singularly the most sophisticated and ubiquitous combination of censorship and propoganda we've yet seen from the tech industry. The tech giants and their puppets have always been nifty at brainwashing the public, but the scheming plot of "AI" marketing really has been next-level in its use of duplicitous strategies.

Search engines, which have traditionally sustained human contribution on the Web, have deliberately been miswired, censoring real voices to the point that only robots, their masters and their servants are allowed to provide information.

Among the servants:

• The predictable collection of information-laundering media outlets. Think TechCrunch, The Verge, TechRadar, Ars Technica...
• "Nonprofitalist" NGOs - particularly, but not exclusively, those based in Silicon Valley. This bunch of insufferable bullshit artists ranges from Big-Tech-founded fascist groups like the FIDO Alliance, to half-adbaron/half-ideologue Google-mouthpieces like Mozilla.
• Desperate bloggers who have worked out that chanting for their own destruction will get them one last sliver of visibility.
• Delusional commentators who take the propaganda machine's repetitive drone at face value and simply repeat it without critical assessment.

And let's not forget high-ranking Big Tech propagandists like Cory Doctorow, who pretend to oppose "AI" when addressing anti-"AI" audiences, whilst elsewhere, performing mental gymnastics to push a pro-"AI" claim ^{[Propaganda Warning]} that subjecting "AI" scrapers to copyright law would somehow mAkE tHiNgS wOrSe FoR cReAtOrS... (W?T?A?F?).

Simultaneously, his "digital rights" group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, helps Arse Technica and every other pred-funded propaganda factory defend the entire "AI" industry ^{[Propaganda Warning]} against the largest IP rights class action in history. Every independent publisher and human rights champion would cheer that class action on at the top of their voice and without relent. But of course, there's nothing independent about corporate-elite bollock-sucking advertorial hovels* like Arse Technica, and cultural genocide enablers like the EFF have nothing whatsoever to do with human rights.

*"Corporate-elite bollock-sucking advertorial hovel" is the thinking brain's term for what non-thinking robot brains describe as a "trusted news and reviews resource themed around technology".

Yes, Doctorow paints a convincing picture of opposition to "AI" when it suits his "man-of-the-people" brand. But behind the charade, he and his EFF associates are just another bunch of two-faced, money-grabbing, Nazi-saluters helping to defend Facebook's AI schemes from accountability. And there's plenty more pro-AI lobbying, spin and court wrangling where that came from.

The WWW was sold to us as a desirable leisure resort, because that's the quick way to drive mass adoption. But it's clear now that the Internet is rapidly shifting into its endgame guise - as something we no longer want to use, but have to.

We won't change that. Having us all incarcerated on-demand, at private corporations' expense, is every authority's wet dream. But we shouldn't waste any more time trying to grow gardens on land marked out for a prison complex.

So before we even get into the proactive ways to oppose AI, we need to recognise that the high-profile mouthpieces we think are opposing the machine, are behind the scenes doing everything in their power to assist it. Leaving the battle to Google-payrolled gobs-for-hire like Doctorow, the EFF, Open Rights Group, Public Knowledge, Arse Technica and Co. will result in an unchallenged win for AI.

---

Media messaging tactics to look out for in the wall of AI propaganda:

With media propaganda, everything is designed to blend in with public consensus. That's why it works. But here are some of the signs that you're reading propaganda, and not a genuine piece of journalism:

• Censorship of widespread public concerns, and of the real consequences of failing to prosecute labour theft and criminal DDoS attacks / bandwidth vandalism.
• Deliberate use of petty language, weasel-wording and downplay to minimise public anger over AI's harms and abuses. For example, using quotes around the word "stealing" when referencing non-consensual appropriation of property. Or describing the criminal destruction of service capacity, which has permanently shut down independent sites, and which should be under police investigation, as "scraping". One million completely unnecessary hits on a modest site in a day is an illegal DDoS attack. Not "scraping".
• Uncritical presentation of literal adverts, and the AI bros' own soap-opera fantasy press releases, as "journalism".
• Tales of vaporous regulatory proposals, futile vigilante action, and industry-manufactured rumours that AI is a "bubble", designed to lull us into a false sense that AI is a fad, and that even if it isn't, something is "being done" to fight against it. Be assured: nothing is being done.
• NGO lobbying from the usual band of tech elite puppets, led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. These two-faced fascists-dressed-as-liberators persistently strive to derail everything that really is "being done", twisting and re-framing every piece of news to serve AI's agenda, and providing legal representation for the AI industry.
• Power posturing. Pitching AI as something so intelligent that we should be a little bit scared of its capabilities. This diverts us from the truth that AI doesn't actually have any intelligence at all, and is nothing more than labour-theft combined with a semantic algorithm and an advanced calculator. It's not the capabilities we should be scared of. It's the money behind it, the bribery, and the fact that as a result, there's no law to protect us from its industrial-scale theft of OUR labour. From the biggest wage-theft rampage in history. And if you were wondering why Doctorow repeatedly harps on about wage-theft, it's not because he gives any remote semblance of a shit about it. It's SEO spamming. It's so his diversionary bullshit and anti-copyright propaganda can appear in searches for "AI" "wage-theft", instead of the mass of content that protests the wage-theft of "AI" itself, and reports or calls for the legal action that Doctorow and his cronies are paid to block.
• Steady, boiling-frog, expectations-management. "Hey, it's only gonna be this bad", "Actually, no, it's gonna be this bad"... "Actually, no, it's gonna be a bit worse than that"... Any intelligent being could see from day one what LLM assistants would mean for the world. But it's taken the mainstream media nearly three years to begin broaching the blatantly obvious consequences I documented within a week of CrapGPT's launch in 2022. The "digital rights" circus hasn't even got that far yet. And it never will. It's paid, by Big Tech, to STFU about the dire cultural and societal prognosis of normalising intellectual property theft.

In conjunction with all of the above, the search providers have algorithmically rigged negative searches relating to "AI", to completely eliminate "AI"-hostile content. For example, a search on "stress" "ai" "absences" yields a top result of "Reducing Absenteeism With Real Time AI Mental Health Support". For the tech giants, there are no negative "AI" queries. Only sales opportunities.

So forget the self-styled saviours and the electronic happy pills. The only person who will save you from AI's electronic genocide is yourself.

---

Which brings us to the main question:

How do you meaningfully oppose AI? Let's get started...

1: FIREWALL YOURSELF TO THE TEETH

Thanks to decades of intensive lobbying, life is now completely lawless for Silicon Valley corporations. The tech elite will take anything you allow them to take, and the latest market for their ill-gotten gains is the LLM trade.

They've gone to great lengths to stop you using a firewall, because a firewall is a padlock on a door that they need you to leave open. Shut the door. Lock the door. Bolt the windows. Fit an alarm. Stop corporate thieves from dipping their light fingers into your personal property. If you don't, they will steal and monetise everything you own.

Far from responding to the societal threats and the already obvious economic decline that comes from letting villains run riot with looting machines, governments are caving to unprecedented bribery and cheering the violence on. In the UK, our fascist-loving moron of a "Prime Minister" is so busy frenching Big Tech's batty that he can barely catch a breath. And when he says "upskill the Civil Service", he means teach them how to feed reams of sensitive information into chatbots and send private citizens' confidential records to Google, obviously. In fact he had his head stuck so far up "AI" lobbyists' arses that he didn't even anticipate this whirlwind of protest when he read out a Surveillance-Valley-scripted "AI" lobbying cry, practically verbatim, as a political manifesto.

Trump, meanwhile, was taught an unforgettable lesson in the power of technological warfare when Twitter seized his account. He felt the effects of digital excommunication at first hand. And now he's back in the driving seat he's amassed the tech elite around him as a battalion, so drunk on the ways Big Tech's power can be used against his adversaries that he still doesn't see the digital sovereignty drives he's sparked across Europe as a threat to his own economy.

The notion that this pair of lobotomose helmets could ever protect any of us against corporate evil is tantamount to surrealism. We have to fight this battle ourselves. And whilst silence is one measure we can take to oppose corporate theft, a better starting point is the fortressing of our private property. Dig your moat, or suffer.

---

2: GET OFF THE INTERNET

I've just updated my Contact Page. Here's the new version. For anyone who wishes to avoid WordPress.com, I've reproduced the text below.

In 2022, when the tidal wave of cultural genocide and societal rot known as "generative AI" lurched into motion, I made resolutions. I've stuck to most of them...

---

THE CONSEQUENCES OF "GENERATIVE AI"

I haven't, for example, published any new content on the music-themed blogs which were once the core of my personal focus online. Never stopped researching and writing about the central subject of electric guitar history - or photographically illustrating it. Only stopped giving the work to late-stage capitalists, and as a sorry side-effect, the public.

I used to upload free music software to the Web too. That's been another casualty of the post-"AI" dystopia. Five major virtual instruments, from synthesizer, through beatbox, to incredibly sophisticated vintage home organ with auto accompaniments, have never seen daylight, and in my lifetime, never will.

Then there's the wealth of tech explorations. Over forty post-2022 articles deep-diving vintage and native webtech, including:

• A 5,239-word illustrated retrospective on the 2001-2003 b2 blogging software and its inner workings.
• A 5,020-word illustrated history of Microsoft FrontPage.
• A 6,484-word guide to creating a component-based, zero-framework JavaScript web application without the demented excesses and planned obsolescence of NPM-dependent prisonware like React.

These highly investigative articles, and many other privately-held pieces like them, are packed with information that just isn't available via online discovery channels. That, indeed, was the reason I started the investigations - digging back through old print publications, setting up authentic retro test environments, etc. But the fruits of this labour are not going online or through any electronic transmission medium. Why would anyone put anything that potentially serves capitalism onto the post-"AI" Web, without compensation, solely for the further enrichment of wannabe trillionaire Nazis who are already too rich to jail?

They've gone to great lengths to stop you using a firewall, because a firewall is a padlock on a door that they need you to leave open. Shut the door. Lock the door. Bolt the windows. Fit an alarm. Keep corporate thieves out of your personal property. If you let them in, they will steal and monetise everything you own.

I've closed eight social media accounts, which predominantly published new humour. Two humour blogs have gone with them. I've stopped publishing on my local interest blog. And despite many requests, I've opted not to re-upload previous, high-value creative work which has disappeared due to platform link-rot. The only thing I do still publish on the Web is my rage - against the machine.

I'm just one person. The above is thus a mere microfraction of the creative and investigative output that "AI" has walled away behind permanently closed doors. And the particular piece of rage you're reading now, is a call for you to join the protest. Elite capitalists have always relied on us, the plebs, to build them their value. Let's see how they get on without us.

Designate a computer for local use only and build a genuinely private digital world.

The Internet has become a cultural wasteland. Hostile, broken, rapidly emptying of anything worth finding... I'd compare it to a slum, but slums are more entertaining.

The bullshit factory will tell you that if only you post in a more "independent" environment, "AI" can't get you. But it would say that, wouldn't it? Like every other message the oligarchs proxy out through their mind-bogglingly huge network of co-opts and shills, this is simply a scam to keep us feeding the machine.

There are no "AI"-safe environments left on the Internet. There's way, way, way too much money in "AI" for "AI"-safe spaces to be possible. You can either disconnect from the WWW or feed "AI". It's up to you.

Disconnecting from the Web doesn't mean renouncing tech.

On the contrary. You can now get a much richer, more rewarding and far less tense/agonising experience from building your own offline environment, than you can find in the hellscape of the WWW.

Even if you go as far as setting up your own private server, you won't need to buy either hardware or software. A personal server is a lightweight and simple piece of software which can exist on any PC.

In fact, once upon a time, personal servers were part of the domestic PC operating system. Windows 98 came with a personal server built in. Trivial to set up, Microsoft's Personal Web Server (PWS) incorporated a consumer-focused management dialogue, a publishing wizard, etc. You even got a free, offline version of the FrontPage WYSIWYG site-builder thrown in to ice the cake. The whole compendium was definitely a consumer-level product, and its use did not require any developer knowledge at all.

Win98's webtech inclusions showed just how simple creating a personal web could be if a tech giant's motivations aligned with providing the tools. When Win98 was under development, Microsoft still feared the openness of the WWW, and pushed personal webs as a means to keep users penned into Windows whilst enjoying the newfangled possibilities of webtech.

But then it became clear that the WWW would not kill Windows, and the lure of surveillance capitalism kicked in. Realising that surveillance capitalism was incompatible with personal webs, MS quickly backtracked, ripping FrontPage out of Win98's second edition, and then killing off the consumer-targeted server entirely in Windows ME.

When the tech elite lose a court case and mount an appeal, they're not saying: "We believe there's been a miscarriage of justice". They're saying: "Maybe next time the judge will take a bribe". Intellectual property law is clear. You cannot reproduce ANY PART of a work without either permission or artistic/contextual justification. The Google Books case proved that money can buy a path around that clear and simple law, and the "AI" industry has unprecedented capital to throw at the legal system.

Today, we can use the 1990s personal web concept as a template for freedom from the "AI" machine. And whilst Windows has long since ceased catering for independent minds, a wide range of Linux distributions come with package libraries crammed with personal building tools. No nag-boxes telling you that God has to sign your personal server and code editor before you're allowed to install it on YOUR OWN F***ING PROPERTY. Just go into the library, select it, and it's installed. With all of the dependencies managed for you.

---

3: STOP USING "AI ASSISTANTS"

Not because your individual abstinence will send some kind of protest vote to Altman and his psychopathic, anti-human bredren. But because when you use these things, you make them stronger. If you're reading this, you are among the enlightened minority. It's true. Brainwashed drones don't read anything that challenges them to think. They just absorb a circular feed of repetitive, three-sentence marketing blurb. And many don't even get past the title. Let them put THAT back into the "AI" assistants' vault of "knowledge", and ultimately choke the machine on its own drone-ass vomit.

"AI" relies on intelligent users to feed it. If you're a thinker, stay away from "AI" tools. You don't need them, and without real human thinking they will, in the end, be revealed to the world for what they really are. Single-result search engines without the sources or the referrals. By now, Google search would have been a much better discovery mechanism than CrapGPT had it not deliberately started returning duff responses to serve an elitist, anti-competitive, censorial, nationalist-on-a-par-with-Hitler agenda.

Google has claimed that its search engine's increasing failure to meet queries with relevant responses is down to "SEO spamming". And yet the search in Google's Gemini product, drawing from exactly the same index, has no trouble at all finding the precise information that even a hyper-nuanced query requests. So Google is, as always, lying, and the search engine is purposely playing dumb. If "AI" has achieved anything positive it's been to expose the game that these tyrants have been playing all along.

---

4: BUTTON IT

Post on Mastodon? Scraped for "AI". They have a literal AI Defence Lawyer on their board of directors. Send an email? Scraped for "AI". Obviously. Fire off an "encrypted" (LOL) instant message? Scraped for "AI".

If you have any knowledge at all that hypercapitalists can turn into profit, now is the time to pull up the drawbridge stop putting it where the machine can get it. The professional British creative industry has already used silence as a protest against "AI". If they were to take that concept further, the logical step would be a type of strike. But for us, the Web's unpaid contributors, silence is not even a strike. If no one is paying you, you can withdraw your labour forever, and you lose nothing.

We can already see that the tech giants came in too early with "AI assistants". They didn't establish a deep enough pool of information to compete with human experts. Quickly realising this (in fact, Google realised it even before CrapGPT was released), the industry has tried to establish a sustainable input of expert knowledge through the bots themselves. It's also tried offering freelance experts peanuts to stoke the artificial "brain". But there was one fundamental flaw common to both Plan A and Plan B:

The common sense required for critical thinking, and thus the acquisition of deep knowledge, reliably prohibits acts of stupidity like giving valuable new research to anti-human thugs in exchange for the opinion of a robot whose "expertise" is mined from Truth Social.

Or indeed selling twenty-six grand's worth of research to Toloka for forty-five quid.

If you have the sense to gather important information, you also have the sense NOT to do the above.

So the tech elite have opted, as usual, to take the cloak and dagger route, attempting to steal real expertise and creativity via nonconsensual channels. If this criminal cartel will go to the trouble of scanning hardbacked books for LLM data, you can be 100% sure that they will also plod the much easier path of swiping in-demand Q&A exchanges from your emails. Especially if you're a professional.

Putting valuable information within reach of the tech industry - whether through a website, email, a messenger or just an unfirewalled operating system - is straightforward submission to corporate thieves. We should now be charging consultancy fees for every piece of potentially monetisable information we provide, and communicating that information face to face. The rich have always done this. It's time for the rest of us to follow suit. No pay, no say.

---

5: POISON THE WELL

One of the reasons the AI industry is so desperate to persuade us that its theft-machines are super-intelligent, is that the truth - the fact that they're so dumb - is their greatest vulnerability. CrapGPT doesn't have the grain of observational skill that it takes to discern a programmer's name in a code comment that the machine copies verbatim and then pretends it wrote. It doesn't understand humour. It can predict sarcasm based on a combo of precedent, likelihood and irregularity of sentiment, but it has no life experience, so it can't identify sarcasm the way humans instinctively do.

There is no brain. It's just corporate thieves stealing work and trying to sell it. But that lack of a brain means that the machine can't mitigate against a poisoned well. It can steer clear of the places where it's told poison is likely to lurk. It can't, however, see or taste the poison per se.

As humans, we can exploit the random, the humorous and the sarcastic to confuse and mislead AI machines. Because they reword everything, non-mechanical traits like humour and sarcasm are lost. So whilst our yes is taken as a witted no, the "AI" bot's reworded version is taken as a display of incompetence.

God forbid that lobbyists ever persuade governments to gift "AI assistants" with Section 230 immunity. For two decades, hiding behind 230's legal immunity, Google merrily destroyed small businesses by giving artificially high search placings to the reputation extortionist Ripoff Report. OPPOSE SAFE HARBOURS FOR "AI" WITH EVERY SHRED OF YOUR ENERGY.

---

6: STOP PANDERING TO SCRAPERS

I'm going to be massively controversial here. I don't care. I know I'm right.

Stop putting 1,000+ words into your image alt text, and stop it now. If you want to help visually-impaired readers, then write better articles, with more text, and communicate more comprehensively without the need for pictures at all. And don't build shit that can't be accessed without JavaScript, or infuse your web properties with ableist services that present visual CAPTCHAs, obviously.

If, on the other hand, you want to help "AI" robots, create posts that contain a picture and no body text, and write the entire verbal content into the alt attribute.

Does it not strike you as strange that Mastodon gives you 1500 characters for your alt text, yet only 500 for your actual post? An intelligent brain can deduce one hard fact from this:

• The tech industry is far more interested in you describing pictures to robots than communicating with your peers.

And let's not bullshit ourselves that Mastodon somehow lies outside of the tech industry. In truth it's nothing but Joe Public paying the Silicon Valley cartel's hosting fees. ActivityPub, and thus the entire Fediverse, is controlled by Big Tech. Google was behind ActivityPub from the start. To quote Dave Winer:

"...then one day I saw that all the people I was collaborating with were meeting with Google and out of that came a completely incompatible protocol, which I believe became ActivityPub."

The claim that the Fediverse can't screw you over is just another of tech fascism's Big Lies. Having the public running servers creates an illusion of independence - as well as a nice economy for Big Tech. But ActivityPub - the real engine room of the Fediverse - was and is a Google initiative. Research it. Deeply. All tracks lead to one predictable place.

DITCH SEO

But helping robots to ID images is not the only thing we urgently need to stop. We need to stop listening to any recommendations from Google - including its "Search Engine Optimisation" guidelines. Many of Google's SEO edicts were designed to serve robots above human beings. And let's face it, beyond simply fanning your capitalist feathers, there's no longer any such thing as SEO. Products and propagandists. That's it. That's your search results. If, as a website admin, your content doesn't shill Big Tech's agenda or promote consumerism, you'll be invisible on Google regardless of what you do with your site.

I know there are people using screen-readers, and I'm not suggesting we create layouts that are impossible for such tools to parse. Not that people like us do that anyway. It's invariably the deliberately over-complicated JavaScript hellscapes built by corporate tech that have behavioural problems and are full of shrouded hyperlinks represented by unlabelled icons whose meaning not even visually-able people can decipher. Yet it's those sites that appear in the search results. Not our plain text pages.

And that's the greatest hypocrisy in Google's holier-than-thou accessibility guidelines. Google does not, in any case, vaguely attempt to surface the sites that are accessible to the widest possible audience. It surfaces pages behind paywalls, pages that only render in Chrome, pages that are TOTALLY BLANK without a specific JavaScript engine, pages behind ableist CAPTCHAs that a bot can solve but a person without vision can't... Given a choice between a transcript and a video, Google will preference the video. Typically to the complete exclusion of the transcript.

That is not accessibility. So we know that when these slimy wretches play the accessibilty card, they're really just coming up with excuses to get the public to serve their robots. Google plays the caring guardian, but it's perfectly okay with bulk-sending the public to platforms that aggravate mental health issues. Oh, and have you tried running a paid ad campaign referring to a catastrophically inaccessible page? Will Google take your money and send the public? You can bloody well bet your ass it will! Even if the page is a 404 (code for "Not Found").

---

7: CONTACT A GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE DEMANDING LAWS AGAINST "AI" PROPERTY AND JOB THEFT, AND ROBUST ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE LAWS

This is the difference between lobbyists and the public. Lobbyists pester the government for change. The public don't.

If you want to neutralise lobbying, do what lobbyist do. Not what they say. They will assure you that your best course of action is to do nothing. And that if you do nothing, someone or something else will deal with the problem for you. No one is dealing with this problem! It is not going to go away unless a large volume of public complaints, to government representatives, result in meaningful reviews of the law.

The only thing that can kill "AI" is reliable and robust intellectual property law which places a prohibitive cost, in lawsuits and fines, on operating the looting machines.

If you care about this enough to contact a government representative, present your complaint as a grave concern about job losses across many industries. In particular, the service industry (which makes up about 50% of the labour market). Cite plunging salaries for skilled workers, the shortening of working weeks, and absenteeism due to stress/burnout caused by AI and its effect on employers' expectations (all of which lose the government a vast amount of tax). They're not going to listen to petty bleating about "Enshittification", so don't waste time whining about the fact that you can't use Gmail without it putting an AI prompt under your finger.

Link them to articles like this and this.

Don't simply Google an issue and link to a result with a title that supports your case, because the search results have been scrubbed of real-world discourse and almost universally choreographed with spins from co-opted outlets. These spins may lead on neutral or anti-"AI" titles, but will still primarily claim positive outcomes for "AI" in their body text. I found it near impossible to find any genuinely "AI"-hostile content via a major search engine. Looking at Google, Bing and their offspring, you'd be forgiven for thinking that no one has anything bad to say about "AI" at all. And if that doesn't encapsulate the inescapable MinistryOfTruthism that now engulfs the visible face of the Web, I don't know what will.

We have to face the fact that the WWW is only going to get worse from here, and at the very least, plan an exit back into the local environments where some freedom from the authorities' giant cage still exists.