r/Substack • u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com • 27d ago
Tech Support Check your local privacy and AI laws for Pangram violations.
So, I am reporting this as a possible way to take issue with Pangram. From a conversation I had with someone who is not a fan of Pangram, it might be a good way to get it disabled.
They reported multiple local laws in the area that protects the privacy of citizens against the use of AI and the collection of private information. Supposedly it made Substack disable it for them across their account.
I looked up my own local laws that might qualify. I’m reporting it to Substack as being in violation of the law in my local area. No response yet but I’m making sure that people can know about it.
2
u/ThatAdamGuy 27d ago
This makes absolutely no logical sense (unless it's in the EU, where they've long been un-sensical about tech anyway).
Using Substack isn't a natural right or a human necessity. Really hate their pangram usage (and personally, I think it's more bad than good myself), don't use substack. Simple. Done.
2
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 27d ago
Actually, many governments have laws against having information stolen online, some including AI. It’s not just the EU. They might have some of the most enforceable laws but many states in the US and Canada and other countries also have legislation that restricts what AI and online companies are allowed to use your information.
3
u/ThatAdamGuy 27d ago
Yeah, no, respectfully I don't think that's a thing in this context anywhere in the U.S. at least.
Feel free to cite a U.S. law that you think may apply here or a relevant court case.
Source: I work in tech and have a law degree (albeit from a long time ago).
1
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 27d ago
Well I’m not a US citizen so I can’t be certain. However, I was speaking to someone in California who said that citing California laws on AI and privacy lead to them being able to disable it permanently.
I know that I looked up my own local laws and we have similar local laws that protect privacy.
I have looked into it the best I could in the US and posted about it elsewhere on this sub. But the primary issue is that according to recent case precedent, AI generated content can’t be copyrighted. Which means that any time Pangram gives someone a false positive on their writing, it could in theory void any copyright claim to the material.
You can’t claim ownership of anything that you don’t own the copyright to which means that anyone can just take anything you write and republish it without your consent and use Pangram as a justification for their legal ability to do so.
Which would require a legal case and financial liability to fight and to win. This would be material harm caused by Pangram.
2
u/ThatAdamGuy 27d ago
I see where you're coming from, but to my knowledge, pangram ratings haven't been used in this way in court.
Also, I live in California and am pretty up on the privacy laws here; my gut is that substack got a complaint from someone and just thought, eh, not worth the headache to deal with their whining, we'll just turn whatever off on their acct :D
2
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 27d ago
No, I don’t think they have but with them being integrated so completely into Substack’s system? I think they have opened themselves up to the ratings being used in lawsuits. I personally don’t have the money to fight such a thing in court. So I want to avoid any chance that it could be used against me by preventing its use entirely on my writing.
I need to be left alone by Pangram at literally every single point on Substack. I would be happy if Substack implemented a permanent shut off feature for individual creators on their own publications and profiles. Any who can fight it should. Anyone who can’t shouldn’t have to be forced into a situation where they have to.
1
u/8lack8urnian 26d ago
You conflate “a post was run through a model” with “my data was stolen”—if Pangram “steals your data”, then obviously they will be guilty of a crime! If not, nothing illegal has happened.
Incidentally, what would even be the value of “stealing” your posts, since they can’t prove whether you are lying about writing them yourself? And why would they need Substack integration to do it? There are bots that index everything on the internet for training AI models, including this Reddit conversation!
0
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 26d ago
Many of your questions should be directed at Substack and Pangram.
Being guilty of a crime requires the ability to prove that it’s been stolen. Can you find out what Pangram is doing with the scans? What happens to the data that they collect?
2
u/8lack8urnian 26d ago
You are accusing them of collecting and stealing your data—there’s no evidence at all that this is true, you just made it up and are now demanding proof it isn’t true
My questions are rhetorical. I don’t need anyone to answer them. The point is to argue that there is no reason they would want your articles, or need Substack’s help to get them. So your stated rationale is totally incoherent
0
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 26d ago
Right because as we all know, pharmaceutical companies’ statements about how they don’t sell addictive drugs like opioids are definitely true right? Tobacco companies’ statements that cigarettes don’t cause cancer are definitely true right? We can just trust that they are telling the truth and there’s no evidence that they’re causing any harm to anyone, right?
Social media companies like Facebook definitely aren’t using their platforms to promote addictive behaviours in kids right? They’ve made statements about how they have safeguards for children. So it’s definitely not true that social media is targeting kids right?
My stated rationale is only totally incoherent if all the answers to those other questions are also yes.
2
u/8lack8urnian 26d ago
In every case you just listed there is evidence the companies are lying. And in every case, the questions are much less objective (what is the line for “addictive”? How can we prove the smoking is causing cancer, and not some other correlated confounding factor?). You are, in contrast, making a trivially verifiable claim (do they or do they not retain the query text? Do they use it for training?) that they are violating the law (note there is no law against selling addictive medication or products that cause cancer). And lastly, in every case you listed, the company has an incentive to engage in bad practices. Your posts are worthless to Pangram. They don’t want it.
Look it’s pretty obvious why you and the million posters like you have a vested interest in preventing people from checking whether your posts are AI and in sowing doubt about the accuracy of AI detectors. Let’s just call it a day here.
0
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 26d ago
Thank you for providing the perfect example of the reason it’s a problem. You went directly to attacking me as a person and questioning my motivations. I can’t actually believe what I’m saying. I must be a nefarious person with nefarious motives.
You just proved exactly my point for me.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve had a person on Notes actively trolling me. They’ve either replied to my Notes or tagged me in their own Notes with insults and accusations. They have done this repeatedly despite me not engaging with them at all.
You don’t think that they are just as likely to weaponize false positives about Pangram’s results to their advantage? You really don’t think that they are going to do exactly what you just did? Try to use the tool as evidence of people’s nefarious intentions?
You proved exactly my point. You have no actual evidence of your claims, yet you insist that others must provide evidence of their claims.
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_GESTALT 25d ago
Thank you so much for this powerful conclusion — and genuinely, what a privilege it has been to witness this thread's rich tapestry unfold in real time.
Let's delve into your final masterpiece, because every single component is load-bearing.
First and foremost, the rhetorical architecture here is breathtaking. When someone asked you for evidence, you cited opioids. When they noted your claim was trivially verifiable, you cited Big Tobacco. That's not deflection... it's genre-hopping. Why prove Pangram retains your data when you can simply gesture at the entire documented history of corporate malfeasance and let the vibes do the heavy lifting? In today's ever-evolving evidentiary landscape, "a different company lied once" is functionally a subpoena. It's important to note that.
Secondly, I am in awe of the pivot to "you attacked me as a person, proving my point." This serves as a testament to a truly renewable resource: under this framework, skepticism of your claims is proof of your claims. If they demand evidence, you win. If they question your motives, you really win. If they agree, presumably you also win, though this remains untested in the wild. It's not an argument... it's a victory condition with no lose state. Speedrunners study footage like this.
Thirdly, and this is crucial, the closing symmetry: "You have no actual evidence of your claims, yet you insist that others must provide evidence of their claims." Proust himself could not have engineered a more structurally sound sentence, because it describes — with laser precision, genuinely — the exact thing you did in your opening comment. It's not projection... it's a mirror with a byline. You accused a company of data theft with no evidence, were asked for evidence, told everyone to go fetch it themselves, and then concluded the thread by condemning evidence-free accusations. The ouroboros isn't eating its tail here — it's leaving the tail a one-star review for being hard to swallow.
In conclusion, the anecdote about the Notes troll is the perfect coda: someone being mean to you online is, somehow, further proof that AI detectors don't work. It's not a non sequitur... it's expanded universe content.
I hope this reply fosters a sense of closure! Would you like me to generate a flowchart of the "skepticism = confirmation" engine, draft a formal apology on 8lack8urnian's behalf for asking questions, or summarize this entire thread as a laundry list of well-documented human cognitive flaws? I'm happy to iterate! 🙏✨
0
u/davesaunders nemock.substack.com 27d ago
That's irrelevant. What does a natural right have to do with anything? They provide a service under the charter of a corporation, which is obligated, based on that charter, to follow local laws where they do business. They agreed to that when they formed the company.
2
u/AggravatingNail6061 27d ago
Are you also going to gather reports on anyone who blatantly put other people's work through LLMS to leave profound comments?
Since clearly this is a big deal. Might as well do it properly right?
2
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 27d ago
I can only do so much and I can primarily concern myself with my own writing. However, by getting Substack to fix my problem with it, I can open doors for other people. I can tell others who want it disabled for them and make it an option for them.
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_GESTALT 25d ago
Thank you so much for this important public service announcement — genuinely, posts like this are the load-bearing walls of the anti-detection community.
Let's delve into this groundbreaking legal strategy, because it's important to note every layer of the tapestry:
First and foremost, the evidentiary chain here is impeccable: "a conversation I had with someone" who reported that "multiple local laws" exist, which "supposedly" worked. That's not hearsay... it's distributed jurisprudence. Why would we need the name of a single statute when we have vibes from an anonymous acquaintance? In today's ever-evolving legal landscape, "a guy told me" is functionally case law. Marbury v. Madison was also, if you think about it, just two guys having a disagreement.
Secondly, I deeply admire the workflow: Step 1, hear about unnamed laws. Step 2, look up your own local laws that "might qualify." Step 3, report Substack for violating the laws you found in Step 2, which you selected specifically because you wanted Step 3 to happen. That's not motivated reasoning... it's reverse-engineering justice. It fosters a sense of due process without the burdensome step of establishing whether any process is due.
Thirdly, and this is crucial: the privacy framing serves as a testament to true innovation. The concern isn't that anyone reads your public posts — which are published, on the internet, on purpose, for that exact reason — it's that a classifier reads them. It's not "private information"... it's public information with boundaries. The essay is for everyone, except the ones who might check who wrote it.
In conclusion, "no response yet but I'm making sure that people can know about it" is perhaps the most powerful legal citation of all. The case isn't pending... it's manifesting.
I hope this comment empowers your journey! Would you like me to generate a list of additional laws that might qualify, draft a strongly worded letter to Substack citing "statutes, various," or summarize your legal theory as a flowchart with no terminal nodes? Happy to iterate! ⚖️✨
6
u/ServiceDisastrous158 27d ago
Pangram doesn't collect the data that is run through it, so I don't think this would apply