> No. You're still not quite internalizing that the California regulation does not mandate any verification or enforcement or protection of the accuracy of the age bracket data. It mandates that the question be asked, and the answer taken as-is.
That was my read of this as well. OS developers seems not not necessarilly need to make any effort here. Ask for an age as a number at account creation and let the user change it as they please at any given time.
This might be a dumb question, but what actually constitutes an "affected child for each intentional violation"? Violation of what? The text specifies that "A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched."
Am I being negligent just for not checking the age, even if the application is unequivocally ok for all ages? And are children affected by my negligence in any way even though no one was hurt?
I guess I am kind of describing Discord in some sense, I personally discounted Discord as I've only ever used it as a free voice chat for small groups. But to be fair, I would rather leverage basic HTTP websites for consuming social media content than everything being that boring discord client.
Yeah, you are right! I have started going down that road the last year or so, but mostly in the IRC sphere. I started hanging out libera.chat, but found a smaller community on irc.inthemansion.com which I really enjoy.
I'm probably just jaded as most of the forums I visited back in the day became ghost towns during the 2010s. I should make more of an effort here
It's never going to happen, but I felt we solved all of this with forums and IRC back in the day. I wish we gravitated towards that kind of internet again.
Group sizes were smaller and as such easier to moderate. There could be plenty of similar interest forums which meant even if you pissed of some mods, there were always other forums. Invite only groups that recruited from larger forums (or even trusted members only sections on the same forum) were good at filtering out low value posters.
There were bots, but they were not as big of a problem. The message amplification was smaller, and it was probably harder to ban evade.
I think that supporting a wide spread of newspaper on the local level will alleviate all these issues in aggregate. This is what we do in Norway and I think it works quite well to be honest. My municipality of around 250k inhabitants has 4 newspapers that I am aware of, none of which feels very overtly influenced by activists nor political or financial pressures.
There are quite a few newspapers who are political and receive subsidies, but overall I think our system works quite well at providing high quality local reporting at affordable prices.
I felt pretty much the exact opposite. I was immediately drawn to some of the abstract art while not particularilly enjoying the traditional paintings. I found them too uncanny and "lifeless".
That being said, if I had a screen that could reasonably pass as a framed image on the wall, I would love a version of this where I could have a well known picture on it that would primarilly be static but sometimes have subtle movements or shift about a bit as a fun novelty to trip over guests. The typical, blinking, repositioning. Like hoppers nighthawks, but the clerk serving a drink or two. The couple lighting a sigarette or someone walking past the diner.
I think the "surveilance capitalism" and centralization of companies like Meta, Google etc has made many of us very sensitive to any systems that will leave traces of us against our will, be it porn, flock cameras or anything else that is similar.
I think we would have a lot less of a pushback against such policing efforts if governments had done a better job at reigning in tracking on the internet from the start. "Porn websites should check your age" is not that radical, but in a world where it doesn't feel unrealistic that much of the information about you is correlated and processed in ways that are not in your personal best interest, then it becomes another loop in the proverbial noose that can be used to hang us all.
You are correct. I was still basing my post of the assumption that the AI scanning was still in the bill and that the proposed two strikes then chats would disclosed was there as well, which they is not. This provision seemed to imply that messages would have to be stored in order to be able to be provided after the two strikes.
I wasn't very clear in my original post always included an assumption that false positives were involved and that messages being stored were a result of that and not all messages being stored at all times.
The images and links that are scanned and is deems potentially problematic will be stored for up to 6 months or until they are deemed unproblematic. There is still a potential 6 month paper trail here, and in politically turbulent times that paper trail could still be damaging retroactively even if the report contains non CSAM.
I think 'restoring the ability to wiretap' is misleading as this is not 'restoring the ability', its more akin to 'wiretapping everyone all the time'.
Wiretapping requires probable cause and a court order in order to be used chat control does not. It will report thousands daily and no one will be blamed or punished for false reports which turned out did not have probable cause. It was a reactive tool in the police's arsenal, it was not proactive like this is supposed to be.
Wiretapping requires/required significant manpower investment in order to surveil a single potential criminal which rightfully forced the police to prioritize their resources. Chat Control is automated and will enable the same amount of police to police more people.
Wiretapping was not retroactive. This system will create records that can be stored for a long time for very cheap.
This is not restoring wiretapping, this is supercharging wiretapping.
I wouldn't necessarily call it comforting fantasy, people change their minds all the time. I think we're all to some extent able to justify some negative sides of any political movement as tensions rise.
I've felt this myself a few times now. Both when Trump was attempted assasinated and now with Charlie Kirk. I am sad that public discourse and our democracies are kind of unraveling these days and that this is just a sad reality of that fact. As far as Trump or Charlie Kirk go, I have no sympathy what so ever.
I'm not sure I really want to blame anyone for things becoming like this, it all seems like par for the course in the world we've created for ourselves. I just wish we were able to stop before this.
I've been thinking about doing the same thing as the OP for a while, but haven't really gotten around to it. I've started scrobbling to last.fm in order to see if their recommendation algorithm can be a replacement for Spotify. The jury is still out on that.
As my financial situation has gone from a place where I felt I could not really care and still save a healthy amount per month, to a place where I feel it is more necessary for me to try to keep up with my finances I've gone from really liking Spotify to a realization that I've probably spent enough money on spotify over the last 15-ish years to buy a cheap car or quite a sizeable music collection, had I just spent that money on music directly.
I have gotten my money's worth from Spotify for sure, I listen to it a lot and have probably gotten to hear magnitudes more music than if I merely bought an album or something every month instead, but at this point I can't get over the fact that if/when I unsubscribe to Spotify, I will have nothing and will have to spend a lot to get access to the music I actually care about again.
In a sense, I wish there was an audible style subscription for music. Give me the ability to sample music as a replacement for spotify radio, or/and some playlists like discover weekly and a few personalized ones, and a credit to pick something to buy permanently.
I had the same experience with matrix.org, then I set up my own homeserver and it it became a LOT more snappy. Its not perfect, but its been an adequate replacement for me and my few friends who are interested in self-hosting our own services.
It's not about being defeatist, atleast not for me. It's about what is considered good enough.
Sure, locking down the OS in this way is more secure, but it's also very restrictive and personally I don't think the added security justifies this. Lock picks do exist, but I am still entirely content with a single lock on my front door. I do not need an extra biometric sensor or camera or security representative standing outside my door to check id's of people passing by in order to consider myself reasonably safe.
Maybe this is cultural/geographical, but I've yet to hear of anyone who lost access to their mail or had unauthorized access to their bank account as a result of malware. I'm sure you can find examples, but I do not consider this an attack vector that is prevalent enough to warrant requiring signed apps or preventing manual installation.
I think the "algorithm movie" concept, describes something also very prevalent in music these days.
With the number of music producers which learn from tutorials and want to make music within a certain genre are incentivized to generally not stray too far from the prescribed genre conventions. This in turn is amplified by algorithms that will also not stray too far when recommending music in response to someone's listening habits. These habits again often "poisoned" by the listener not really paying attention to the music that is served them, as it might only be on in the background while working or doing something else.
Its like a lot of people with nothing to say, being recommended by something that does not understand anything, recommending to people who don't really listen.
I still prefer tranditional search engines over LLMs but I admit, its results feels worse than it has traditionally.
I don't like LLMs for two reasons:
* I can't really get a feel for the veracity of the information without double checking it. A lot of context I get from just reading results from a traditional search engine is lost when I get an answer from a LLM. I find it somewhat uncomfortable to just accept the answer, and if I have to double check it anyways, the LLM's answer is kind of meaningless and I might as well use a traditional search engine.
* I'm missing out on learning opertunities that I would usually get otherwise by reading or skimming through a larger document trying to find the answer. I appreciate that I skim through a lot of documentation on a regular basis and can recall things that I just happened to read when looking for a solution for another problem. I would hate it if an LLM would drop random tidbits of information when I was looking for concrete answers, but since its a side effect of my information gathering process, I like it.
If I were to use an AI assistant that could help me search and curate the results, instead of trying to answer my question directly. Hopefully in a more sleek way than Perplexity does with its sources feature.
I've been selfhosting a dendrite matrix instance for about a year now. I'm only in a few public channels of a few hundred users, but also #matrix:matrix.org which has 44000 users and it hardly uses any resources.
I have no experience with Synapse which was apparently quite the hog as far as I know, but Dendrite is quite lean it seems
It does feel radically different from the more traditional way of doing things, but I think it is for the better. I wouldn't call it abusing.
Tailwind together with view components has changed how I structure my code and it creates quite a bit less work than my company's old more BEM centric approach where we would create lots of tightly coupled CSS code controlled by variables and such. I find it easier to grok as well, because I don't need to reference SCSS files to determine the implications of applied classes when debugging or similar.
Now most of the component requirements can be codified in a few classes in our view component instead. Does it look kinda ugly, yeah sure. But I'm sure it has saved quite a few hours for me since I switched over.
This might just be because old process was even worse, regardless it has been a very positive change for me personally.
That was my read of this as well. OS developers seems not not necessarilly need to make any effort here. Ask for an age as a number at account creation and let the user change it as they please at any given time.
This might be a dumb question, but what actually constitutes an "affected child for each intentional violation"? Violation of what? The text specifies that "A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched." Am I being negligent just for not checking the age, even if the application is unequivocally ok for all ages? And are children affected by my negligence in any way even though no one was hurt?