I swear this thread could be about the father suing Google for self-termination of his son after interacting with Gemini case. Gavalas v Google, I think.
#FirstAmendment #Speech #Lawsuit #Liability
Amongst my friends, we sometimes will not click on a link that we received while signed in as not to affect our recommendations. Ex: Want me to view your YT link? Sure, in this other incognito window. They like their recommendations, they preserve them.
I liked Google's defunct social media attempt (Circles) for this reason. I could see what was posted by people in my "close circles."
I can't help but imagine a scenario in which it is figured out what hours of the day people are most active on social media, and then the spammers and advertisers inundated with their posts at those times. Spam behaviour finds its way into many communications forms.
They are going to be busy **not** doing that!
#olympics #politics
...I rarely log into FB. But when I do, I appreciate that I see more important posts, such as being notified about a class mate's injury or someone's birth, before I see other trivial fodder.
Please, don't take away my recommendations algorithm.
I don't understand why some push for chronological sort to be the preferred algorithm. My gut feeling is thebsame people appreciate their e-mail clients filtering, sorting, and prioritizing their messages.
Chronological sort prioritizes content posted near the same time you are active...
Ron Wyden talks about Section 230.
youtu.be/gq5X1_hV8uI?...
#section230
NEW: David Greene was the voice of NPR's "Morning Edition." Is he also secretly the voice of Google's popular AI podcast tool, NotebookLM?
Google says no. Greene thinks they're lying. My story today breaks the news of his lawsuit and compares the two voices. Listen for yourself: wapo.st/3ZHRvho
eah, dark thought, I know. Looking at the pied piper or the witch of Hansel and Gretel through the modern lenses, I cannot help but help but seeing them as characters as unable to survive allegations of being groomers.
I thought the same thing. I might make it a nee litmus test for making a quick check of the authenticity of one's concern for others being exploited.
Performative chikd concern is cheap and great for short-circuiting the reasoning of others for manipulation.
The agent had him to stop the eye test and fill out the other inf9. Qhen he came back to the eye test, he finally figured out it was the number 8.
I am of the opinion he doesnt need to drive any more. He doesnt even have a car.
This will be his last license ever. It expires when he is 85 y/o.
Took dad to renew his license. He almost failed the eye test. They ask him to read the **numbers**.
He starts off with the letter B.
They tell him it is all numbers, there are no letters.
He still says B.
I could infer it was the number 8, but dad had a hard time arriving at that.
#parents
Me: Someone having something on their computer doesn't imply it is intended for sharing or publication of social media.
Her: I'm getting tired of you! You are always arguing from some set of knowledge that others don't have!
Me: I can think of no reply that won't provoke you. I'll stop here.
Me: I don't like that Microsoft keeps a copy of encryption keys ready to hand over to feds.
Her: I don't see why you would worry unless you are doing something illegal.
Me: Info on a non-guilty person could still incriminate them.
Her: Then they don't need to be putting it on social media!
I made a list of all the things I wanted to accomplish. At the end of the day, I had a pretty fair set of data points of how badly I failed.
RIP to the Loyisiana Online Age Verification Law
youtu.be/zLnurDKse5U?...
#AgeVerification #SocialMedia #ThinkOfTheChildren
No. That sounds like a variation of a FEC complaint that the RNC made against Twitter some years back. That complaint got dismissed.
The protections of 1A don't generally diminish with size or influence. This would just be an instance of 1A exercise.
Huh? That would not remove Musk's right to make his statement.
There have been humans who have made deadly informational mistakes and escaped liability for it. Im not certain that AI would be radically different.
I dont think that would help in the way you might think. It could make people's posts more vulnerable to the heckler's veto.
Sounds like you and the math teachers from last week can relate.
The fairness doctrine only ever applied to the use of govt owned radio spectrum (OTA radio and TV). I think 1A would prevent it from applying elsewhere.
False statements are not generally unlawful. 1A makes it difficult to make them so..
I've not seen that there is such a line. One won't be treated as the publisher/speaker of posts because of having removed/arranged other posts any more than a book store would be treated as the author of a book for having removed/arranged other books.
...CSAM is largely handled by Microsoft PhotoDNA and user reporting.
Im not sure why you think this is a stretched analogy. The same laws that have protected bookstores from liability for content have protected online spaces. Email services sorting and filtering are protected by §230.
In the USA, expressions being designed to moment hate, division, or being a lie isn't sufficient to make it unprotected speech. For malicious speech, it would depend on more factors.
Word filters in online posts have been present since at least 1990s...
Sorting and organizing my content doesn't make it more or less unlawful. It isn't much different than rearranging books in a book store. If I go to a book I like, related books are nearby. But one hasn't generally created "bad" info by organizing those books.
As a person that only occasionally logs into FB and for reading only, I appreciate that posts about life-changing events (including deaths) show up for me first instead of being buried in a chronological sort algorithm, which prioritizes recency instead of signals for importance.
I started to find some information services, such as email, less useful until the services started prioritizing, filtering, and separating content for me. Same with my text messages. I would hate for this functionality to be removed to avoid arbitrary litigation.
One justification is the general lack of specific awareness of the actual contents. When there are large amounts of information, having some way of sorting and prioritizing it is useful. This is generally automated and done without aomeone reading posts. Penalizing organization punishes everyone.
