I saw a comment left by an Australian about this on a different site, and they pointed out a crucial bit of context that you’re also missing here: this applies to social media apps/sites that are governed by an algorithm.
So...all of them. Even if a user set their feed to Newest/Chronological, that's still an algorithm.
Youth in Australia are still allowed to use the internet. They’re still allowed to chat on Discord and play in Roblox.
For now, at least. From what I can find, a lot of people are suggesting adding Roblox and Discord to the ban list.
You don’t even offer any particularly good alternatives in the end, just more questions.
Criticising something doesn't mean that one needs to come up with alternatives.
To boldly declare that we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas simply isn’t good enough anymore.
So any port in a storm, eh? That's what this ban is: something had to be done about kids on social media, and the politicians did something.
Also, the problem isn’t that AI costs too much, it’s that people fucking don’t want it.
That's very clearly not true. Tons of people use AI daily, whether it's ChatGPT, Gemini, CoPilot and so on.
What people generally don't want is AI-generated culture, i.e. games, movies, images.
I don't think governments would immediately use them for nefarious purposes.
I do think governments would almost immediately drop the ball in terms of digital security, though.
Australia is the first country to do this because most countries realise that theres no perfect system of age verification that does not infringe on privacy or put personal data at risk .
The problem is that most countries also don't seem to care. Or, should I say, most governments.
Elizabeth Warren has also come out against the deal, saying that it'll lead to the usual consequences.
Have I missed something, or was she completely silent on the other massive media mergers in recent years?
Simplicity is great if all you care about is protecting liability going overboard, and are willing to sacrifice the cases where the host contributes to the violative behavior.
Section 230 doesn't make platforms immune; it just makes quick(er) work of cases where they clearly aren't liable for the content. Do you have any examples of cases where the platform contributed to the violative behaviour and wasn't punished?
Under the simplicity of 230, it wouldn’t have to take it down at all.
But it might have to under the platform's own terms.
Will Anyone Be Held Accountable For 600,000 Deaths?
No, because it’s not the US government’s responsibility to prevent deaths in other countries. It might be good foreign policy, but in the end our government is responsible for its own people, not the entire world.
This isn't a case of people wanting to help other countries and not having the option of doing so, thereby leading to foreign deaths.
It's a case of existing programs helping other countries, and those programs being cut or massively downsized due to ignorant morons not understanding what they're doing, and not caring that the cuts had impact on actual people.
You're making a ridiculous strawman.
When right-wingers accuse someone of “bias”, it’s basically code for “that person has political opinions.
Well, close. When right-wingers accuse someone of bias, it tends to mean "this person is using facts that cause me cognitive dissonance, so I have to discredit his claim instead of coming up with an actual argument".
And you just knew that some fanboy would read "Trump's decisions means that this will continue and get worse" as "Streaming price hikes are Trump's fault".
Yes, the American people gets to have Republicans piss on them to keep them warm. That's not going to last very long now that the GOP knows that hostage-taking works.
Casinos are designed to part people from their money. As the saying goes "Nobody beats the house". So I'd say casinos are inherently harmful.
We may be able to add a tenth thing to the list: "The Warrior Dividend", where he wants to send a check for $1,776 to all military personnel.
Billionaires like Ellison don't care about the long term in that manner.
I don't think governments would immediately use them for nefarious purposes. I do think governments would almost immediately drop the ball in terms of digital security, though.
What do you mean, "enforce it"? In terms of marking it as including AI-generated assets?
Casting is off? Then I guess it's time to cast off!
Elizabeth Warren has also come out against the deal, saying that it'll lead to the usual consequences. Have I missed something, or was she completely silent on the other massive media mergers in recent years?
Designated Relentless Unwarranted Nautical Killings. Or DRUNK.
I assume that's supposed to be a dig at democrats, in which case, lol fuck your "but the other guys" argument.
And you just knew that some fanboy would read "Trump's decisions means that this will continue and get worse" as "Streaming price hikes are Trump's fault".
Yes, the American people gets to have Republicans piss on them to keep them warm. That's not going to last very long now that the GOP knows that hostage-taking works.
Socialism != communism.