When it comes to public outreach, the question is more “why not?”

I admire your positivity. I do not share it though, because from what I have seen, because even if there are open weights, the one with the biggest datacenter will in the future hold the most intelligent and performance model. Very similar to how even if storage space is very cheap today, large companies are holding all the data anyway. AI will go the same way, and thus the megacorps will and in some extent already are owning not only our data, but our thoughts and the ability to modify them. I mean, sponsored prompt injection is just the first thought modifying thing, imagine Google search sponsored hits, but instead it's a hyperconvincing AI response that subtly nudges you to a certain brand or way of thinking. Absolutely terrifies me, especially with all the research Meta has done on how to manipulate people's mood and behaviour through which social media posts they are presented with

No I don't think there really were many so your point is valid But the law works like that, things are in a grey area or in limbo until they are defined into law. That means the new law can be written to either protect consumer privacy, or make it legal to the letter to rape consumer privacy like this bill, or some weird inbetween where some shady stuff is still explicitly allowed but in general consumers are protected in specific ways from specific privacy abuses This bill being the second option is bad because typically when laws are written it then takes a loooong time to reverse them

Weird headline. Is it the city making this recommendation, or the... Despite universal opposition by the dozens of residents present at the meeting, commissioners voted to recommend changes to the city’s zoning laws to allow data centers in areas zoned for light industrial use and to rezone a 700-acre property from agricultural to light industrial to accommodate the construction of a hyperscale data center.

What are you on about with this? Last news post 2013?

For sure they are! Meta more then the others though

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 ?