But fascist really fails to capture the ethnic cleansing part. We really do need a new group name to discuss the Israelis who commit ethnic cleansing. Someday I hope we will use it to round up these fuckers for their trials in The Hague. I guess we should call them Likuds or just Zionists.

I have a rough idea of their efficiency as I've used them, not in professional settings but I wager it would not be too different. My point is more that it feels like the rugs are finally starting to get pulled. This tech is functionnal as you said, it works to a point and that point is enough for a sizeable amount of people. But I doubt that the price most people are paying now is enough to cover the cost of answering their queries. Now that some people, especially younger devs or people who never worked without those tools are dependant on it, they can go ahead and charge more. But it's not too late, so I'm hoping it will make some people more aware of that kind of scheme and that they will stop feeding the AI hype in general.

If you had asked me during the Obama administration I would have said this a chance of becoming law. Today I give it 0.002%.

That they didn't have enough technicians trained in this to be able to ensure that one was always available during working hours, or at least when it was glaringly obvious that one was going to be needed that day, is . . . both extremely and obviously stupid, and par for the course for a corp whose sole purpose is maximizing profit for the next quarter.

I’ll probably never trust anything they’ve touched until I’ve taken it apart and put it back together again. Me too. But the vast majority of users need guardrails, and have a different threat model. Even those that also care about privacy, if they just want a solution that comes by default, this adtech 'fake' or 'superficial' solution does provide something. And anything is more than nothing.

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.