Skip to content

US Senate strikes AI provision from GOP bill after uproar from the states

Technology
15 12 0
  • 14 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    lupusblackfur@lemmy.worldL
    Welp, queue up some more multi-million dollar "donations" to have these cases dropped... Not like the TechBros don't have the funds. ‍️ ‍️
  • 10 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    lordgarmadon@lemmy.worldL
    All hail our tiny head terminator overlords.
  • 42 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    F
    I imagine not, though I haven't looked into it.
  • Bong Online Shop Canada Toronto

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • How Do I Prepare My Phone for a Protest?

    Technology technology
    139
    1
    506 Stimmen
    139 Beiträge
    55 Aufrufe
    D
    So first, even here we see foundation money and big tech, not government. Facebook, Google, etc mostly love net neutrality, tolerate encryption, anf see utility in anonymous internet access, mostly because these things don't interfere with their core advertising businesses, and generally have helped them. I didn't see Comcast and others in the ISP oligopoly on that list, probably because they would not benefit from net neutrality, encryption, and privacy for obvious reasons. The EFF advocates for particular civil libertarian policies, always has. That does attract certain donors, but not others. They have plenty of diverse and grassroots support too. One day they may have to choose between their corpo donors and their values, but I have yet to see them abandon principles.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • The mystery of $MELANIA

    Technology technology
    13
    1
    25 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    geekwithsoul@lemm.eeG
    Archive