The poll, published by the research firm and the Walton Family Foundation... Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to The 74. What kind of fool would believe anything from these grifters? Phony AF at its face.

Yes. I can't imagine that they will go after individuals. Businesses can't be so cavalier. But if creators don't pay the extra cost to make their models compliant with EU law, then they can't be used in the EU anyway. So it probably doesn't matter much. The Llama models with vision have the no-EU clause. It's because Meta wasn't allowed to train on European's data because of GDPR. The pure LLMs are fine. They might even be compliant, but we'll have to see what the courts think.

Most still are/can be. Enough that I find it hard to believe people are missing out without podcasts through these paid services.

This feels dystopian and like overreach. But that said, there definitely is some porn on the 4 platforms they cited. It's an excuse sure, but let's also not deny reality.

The Matrix Foundation and Element/New Vector are different orgs, and it's Element with the government contracts

I don't see Yarvin on here... this needs expansion.

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 ?