Propaganda works. Yeah, people are stupid, but if you spend decades destroying education and teaching disinfo, well... The results are predictable You can hate them all you like, but you do have to look at the problem logically if you want to fix it

Iinitially called bullshit since you provided no sources, but according to Wikipedia, you are correct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital

To be fair, icon theming was terrible in most previous betas too. I highly doubt they are focusing on that aspect pretty hard in the dev betas.

They also bundle twice as much crapware

The AI only needs to alert the doctor that something is off and should be tested for. It does not replace doctors, but augments them. It's actually a great use for AI, it's just not what we think of as AI in a post-LLM world. The medically useful AI is pattern recognition. LLMs may also help doctors if they need a starting point into researching something weird and obscure, but ChatGPT isn't being used for diagnosing patients, nor is anything any AI says the "final verdict". It's just a tool to improve early detection of disorders, or it might point someone towards an useful article or book.

You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?