Skip to content

American attitudes about AI today mirror poll answers about the rise of the internet in the '90s

Technology
48 30 0
  • 98 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    K
    This guy wasn't born yesterday.
  • 585 Stimmen
    57 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    arararagi@ani.socialA
    Because artists are still there.
  • 43 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • What editor or IDE do you use and why?

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    26 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    T
    KEIL, because I develop embedded systems.
  • This Month in Redox - May 2025

    Technology technology
    1
    21 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 52 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    C
    Murderbot is getting closer and closer
  • 93 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    G
    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 ?
  • 4 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    M
    Epic is a piece of shit company. The only reason they are fighting this fight with Apple is because they want some of Apple’s platform fees for themselves. Period. The fact that they managed to convince a bunch of simpletons that they are somehow Robin Hood coming to free them from the tyrant (who was actually protecting all those users all along) is laughable. Apple created the platform, Apple managed it, curated it, and controlled it. That gives them the right to profit from it. You might dislike that but — guess what? Nobody forced you to buy it. Buy Android if Fortnight is so important to you. Seriously. Please. We won’t miss you. Epic thinks they have a right to profit from Apple’s platform and not pay them for all the work they did to get it to be over 1 billion users. That is simply wrong. They should build their own platform and their own App Store and convince 1 billion people to use it. The reason they aren’t doing that is because they know they will never be as successful as Apple has been.