For the sake of accuracy, Elon Musk is not Afrikaner. He's South African of British descent, while Afrikaners are of Dutch descent and primarily speak Afrikaans. They're both 'white' in the sense that they're of European descent but in South Africa they're distinct ethnicities.
Let's see...
* Embrace Internet censorship to "protect the children"
* Pretend to be "tough on Big Tech" without passing an actual privacy bill or anything for that matter
* "Striking bipartisan support"
* Arbitrary deadlines that just so happens to be after major elections (in this case the 2026 midterms)
* Turn its targets into President Trump's plaything
I think all that's missing is a foreign bogeyman, but it's not hard to find one.
Usually those with a conspiratorial mindset are the same people who will carry out their own conspiracies when given enough power. Like here the only way to take on an imaginary anti-Trump 'deep state' is to make your own pro-Trump deep state.
The law took effect when Biden signed it 9 months ago, and since then no court has issued a stay or injunction (granted that's partly because of how the law is written, since all appeals have to go through the D.C. Circuit, but I digress). The ban is what supposedly supposedly happens if TikTok/ByteDance doesn't comply with the law by the stated deadline.
You're right that the AG probably doesn't have enough time to enforce the ban on app stores, but without any guidance on how such a ban should be enforced just gives wiggle room to the next administration to give that 90-day extension (which Trump now says he'll try to grant).
Personally I'm not in favor of any ban, but it just shows how arbitrary the national security concerns are, not as "well-founded" as the Supreme Court is convinced. I think internal polling must show the TikTok ban is unpopular for key voting demographics (e.g. younger people, independent voters, actual TikTok users) so both administrations are back-pedaling. Heck, even some lawmakers who supported the bill are back-pedaling.
Zuck wants more speech right? Maybe advertisers could use their own speech by boycotting Facebook. I bet we'd see Trumplicans quickly jump to 'not advertising on Facebook is blackmailing free speech' similar to the exTwitter boycott.
This had me similarly scratching my head when I saw it. Turns out the UK's version of GDPR gives companies an exemption if it is "manifestly unfounded or excessive" which could arguably apply here.
It's hilarious that they're trying to solving problems that nobody has. Even if you use ChatGPT a lot, why would you need a special mouse button to open it?
It's funny, I was just reading the Pessimists Archive's article on "The Forgotten War on Beepers" and then I stumbled on this review. Seems we aren't very far removed from techno-panics, not just video games.
Jason Koebler at 404 Media confirmed that the “lawyers” on the Commonwealth page are AI-generated.
In the article, Koebler interviewed someone who said it's likely they were AI-generated using GAN. That's a bit different from independently confirming, but after researching GAN I can see what they mean.
The chatbot's legal disclaimers probably mean that won't happen in any court. The terms of use say:
Nothing contained in or displayed on NYC.gov or in these Terms constitutes or is intended to constitute legal advice by the City or any of its agencies, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, or representatives.
It's less that they want to protect Americans from 'Evil China' than they are jealous of China's authoritarian powers. Basically the same trajectory that India has been heading the last few years, though (fingers crossed) maybe our press freedoms and courts are more resilient.
I'm half surprised the NY Times didn't include links to the full chat histories in the lawsuit, or maybe cover them in more detail in further reporting. To me it feels like the company lawyers wrote the 'suit instead of the journalists.
So "AI" is basically being used as Article Spinning 2.0? Though judging by the quality it looks Article Spinning 1.0 ("Star Wars fans" becomes "war of stars fans" etc.)
For the sake of accuracy, Elon Musk is not Afrikaner. He's South African of British descent, while Afrikaners are of Dutch descent and primarily speak Afrikaans. They're both 'white' in the sense that they're of European descent but in South Africa they're distinct ethnicities.
Correction
TikTok ban 2.0
Let's see... * Embrace Internet censorship to "protect the children" * Pretend to be "tough on Big Tech" without passing an actual privacy bill or anything for that matter * "Striking bipartisan support" * Arbitrary deadlines that just so happens to be after major elections (in this case the 2026 midterms) * Turn its targets into President Trump's plaything I think all that's missing is a foreign bogeyman, but it's not hard to find one.
Usually those with a conspiratorial mindset are the same people who will carry out their own conspiracies when given enough power. Like here the only way to take on an imaginary anti-Trump 'deep state' is to make your own pro-Trump deep state.
Cozying up with hate groups probably isn't great for business, especially for the people being targeted who might otherwise be customers.
The law took effect when Biden signed it 9 months ago, and since then no court has issued a stay or injunction (granted that's partly because of how the law is written, since all appeals have to go through the D.C. Circuit, but I digress). The ban is what supposedly supposedly happens if TikTok/ByteDance doesn't comply with the law by the stated deadline. You're right that the AG probably doesn't have enough time to enforce the ban on app stores, but without any guidance on how such a ban should be enforced just gives wiggle room to the next administration to give that 90-day extension (which Trump now says he'll try to grant). Personally I'm not in favor of any ban, but it just shows how arbitrary the national security concerns are, not as "well-founded" as the Supreme Court is convinced. I think internal polling must show the TikTok ban is unpopular for key voting demographics (e.g. younger people, independent voters, actual TikTok users) so both administrations are back-pedaling. Heck, even some lawmakers who supported the bill are back-pedaling.
More speech
Zuck wants more speech right? Maybe advertisers could use their own speech by boycotting Facebook. I bet we'd see Trumplicans quickly jump to 'not advertising on Facebook is blackmailing free speech' similar to the exTwitter boycott.
So remember, next time you think of trying to get away with murder, Big Brother is watching you, and he has a 360-degree panoramic view.
"AI" moderation
Is there evidence these moderation decisions are the result of an AI system as opposed to, let's say, an outsourced African firm?
UK's GDPR
This had me similarly scratching my head when I saw it. Turns out the UK's version of GDPR gives companies an exemption if it is "manifestly unfounded or excessive" which could arguably apply here.
Well, the article is quoting The Guardian, if that's what you're referring to 🙄
It's hilarious that they're trying to solving problems that nobody has. Even if you use ChatGPT a lot, why would you need a special mouse button to open it?
It's funny, I was just reading the Pessimists Archive's article on "The Forgotten War on Beepers" and then I stumbled on this review. Seems we aren't very far removed from techno-panics, not just video games.
Yeah, they are fiction generators first and foremost. The fact they are occasionally good at doing other things does not change that.
The chatbot's legal disclaimers probably mean that won't happen in any court. The terms of use say:
It's less that they want to protect Americans from 'Evil China' than they are jealous of China's authoritarian powers. Basically the same trajectory that India has been heading the last few years, though (fingers crossed) maybe our press freedoms and courts are more resilient.
I'm half surprised the NY Times didn't include links to the full chat histories in the lawsuit, or maybe cover them in more detail in further reporting. To me it feels like the company lawyers wrote the 'suit instead of the journalists.
No, they used an algorithm, not a chatbot. Even then, not all chatbots are run by LLMs.
So "AI" is basically being used as Article Spinning 2.0? Though judging by the quality it looks Article Spinning 1.0 ("Star Wars fans" becomes "war of stars fans" etc.)