Don't worry, all you have to do is lie there and it'll be over before you know it.
catreadingabook
joined 2 years ago
I've just read the full text of the bill and other than section 6 (requiring yearly reports from big platforms, seems kinda unnecessary) the terms are actually pretty reasonable and they all seem directly related to protecting minors in particular. Especially looking at:
Section 2(3), the bill's definition of a "covered platform," which has some pretty broad exceptions such as email services or "an organization not organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members."
Section 3, the duty of care, which still allows minors to deliberately search for information in 3(b)(1). The covered platforms just need to avoid enabling literal crimes against the minor, as well as a probably-unenforceable duty about mental health disorders. It only requires a "reasonable effort" - where, legally, 'reasonableness' is usually decided by judges and takes into account how burdensome it would be for a particular defendant to prevent a particular harm.
Section 10, which would give examples of what is or isn't enough, so that platforms don't have to guess whether their effort is enough.
imo this uproar sounds more like alarmism from those big platforms who don't like the fact that they would have to do actual work. I don't see any censorship involved other than preventing minors from getting doxxed and not being allowed to advertise gambling and alcohol to kids. Maybe I'm missing something?
I feel like at this point, accurately reporting the state of the world counts as 'Democratic scaremongering.' Climate change is making the world less habitable. The coronavirus is capable of killing you. Some people will die as a direct result of the current forced-birth laws. It's possible to have a functioning society without racism and sexism. For some reason, these facts are all "political" and it's not the Democrats who are contesting them.
Galaxy brain idea: Just encrypt your messages manually. Agree on an algorithm and trade keys in-person, then send each other encrypted files that you decrypt with a separate program (and for added privacy, on a separate device that doesn't have network access). It's not convenient at all but the idea is hilarious.
There's an urban myth at my university that two students did this to test rumors that the school emails were being monitored, and after a few weeks later IT emailed them asking them to stop.
Agreeing with priapus, no idea what OP is on about but the one here is in really poor taste. Saying generalized statements and trying to describe an entire community as if your experiences are universal, especially trying to paint the entire community in a negative light, is uneducated and weird.
It would be like saying, "I feel like men are dangerous and creepy. They seem to go out of their way to get offended when we tell them we don't want to talk to them. Like, I'm sorry some people in the country have made them feel like they need female attention, but they're hurting their own cause by insisting that they deserve sex all the time."
Maybe it's true about a subset of the group, and that's probably the subset you will see if you are exclusively browsing hateful content all the time. But a few real life conversations with real life people will show that those statements are barely accurate at all for the majority of them.
A more appropriate way to express themselves would have been centered on their own experiences - "I feel like I have to be careful expressing my views on trans people because I see people getting offended over innocuous questions," etc etc. Very very different tone.
It's unfortunate... although... there is a certain age bracket of people who actively vote with the intention of making these problems worse for everyone. One can only hope the problem is self-solving.
It's a clever take, but if true, then it may be inevitable. Politically, even if one party tries to pass the regulations proposed here, the other will 100% use the catch-all "we need to regulate AI!!!!!" scare tactics as an excuse to accept corporate bri-- I mean, to permit lobbying against any rights to free information.
Ugh, this takes me back to seeing r/AskMen constantly make the front page with posts along the lines of, "Men, what bad things are women doing to us that shows that they are evil and we are victims?" And then all the top answers are either women wanting to be left alone, or ancient stereotypes that apply to maybe 0.5% of women in real life and aren't socially accepted to begin with. Really hoping we don't see the same here.
It could still theoretically be that our reality is some kind of entertainment. For example, people enjoy playing The Sims. There are still active communities for the older versions even though there are newer, more engaging games out there. And more generally, some people prefer old games even though their computers have like 1000x the processing power needed to run it.
If the reality we experience is a simulation, it could be for similar motivations, the hardware would be sophisticated but still a user will run whatever they prefer on it.
Sure you can!
...Just not one that pays enough for you to afford basic necessities like food and shelter.
Libs: Owned. (/s)
The "high-tech solutions" were sustainable energy, banning mass animal farms, and regulating industrial pollution.
And even if we did come up with a big tech solution that works for now, literally every business would then think, "Nice, now we don't have to care about our carbon footprint," until even our tech can't keep up anymore and we're back at square one.
Which would be scary, if the article wasn't completely misstating the law. Nowhere does the bill state that it will ban "depressing" content. Nowhere does the bill control what people can and can't say. At worst, a platform may need to provide resources to help with mental health disorders.
For example, at the end of a depressing commentary, a site may be asked to add an automated reminder that if a person is feeling XYZ symptoms of depression, they should reach out to a qualified professional for help. Maybe same for content that actively promotes or glorifies untreated mental health issues, like that Tiktok trend in 2021 that had hundreds of kids deciding they suddenly have Dissociative Identity Disorder but also don't want to be diagnosed or treated.
Or as another example, if a minor on social media is repeatedly reporting another user for harassment, the platform may be asked to automatically suggest for the minor to block the user.
It's obvious enough that depressing content doesn't cause depression. No one is going to prosecute a news organization for reporting true facts. Even then, it would be more than a "reasonable effort" to ban an entire type of content - at the very worst, content creators who post "Top 10 reasons to commit suicide!" might be asked to label it properly so minors can't find it unless they search for it. Just add it to the site's community guidelines and enforce it. That's a reasonable effort and doesn't affect most adults at all.