Well TikTok is not just bad for privacy but also for mental health and everything else you can possibly think about so probably the ban isn’t actually that bad
So Meta, Twitter, Snapchat and all the others who’ve redefined what data collection looks like and keep folks self centered is fine? The only reason the US is throwing this fit is because they can’t access the collected data like they can with US based data brokers, I mean social media. The key aspect of this ban revolves around freedom of speach more than anything else.
It is the same worse. Billionaires do not have an allegiance to the well-being of any nation’s citizens. What is a foreign state going to brainwash us with that could possibly be worse than the existing gamer-to-far-right-radical pipeline?
They could use their advertising platform to manipulate US public opinion and elections. And, again, this isn’t to say it’s fine for domestic companies to do this. But that’s no argument against this law. In fact, I daresay the “gamer-to-far-right-radical pipeline” you identify is an example of this.
I don’t think I would argue against this law, IDK. It’s just a slap in the face to see they recognize how dangerous the thing is.
We always knew they would do nothing to legislate misinformation, bigotry, and electioneering on the US-based platforms. But now we know for a fact that they understand these platforms are weaponized against the public.
Far, far worse for your own country to have that data. If you live in the US for example, facebook can and does forward your messages about getting an abortion to law enforcement if you live in one of the no-abortion states. That mother and daughter both have charges now.
Hey, guess what? We’re fucked. This article is a solid (and depressing) read. Seeing the protections other countries have in place at the end just made me even more despondent. There’s no way we’ll get that here.
Hartmann is great. I’d recommend him more if he didn’t work with RT for a long time, which always made me skeptical of him. He’s still super smart and a great talk show host though
I was living in New York City in 1981. The homeless population exploded overnight. There were homeless camps all over. They lasted until well into Clinton’s first term.
That’s also more than just Reaganomics. That’s around when the deinstitutionalization push started. Reagan capitalized on the left’s push to close institutions and he did so without funding any replacement services in the community.
It really is nuts that there is a poor occupied land half full of children that has lacked access to adequate potable water, sufficient food, hygiene, healthcare, etc for over half a year.
Then there is a rich country next to them committing colonial genocide with AI-powered weapons that we know are designed to accept about 20 civilian deaths for 1 rank and file member of Hamas death and 100 civilian deaths for a higher up.
And then you have one of the richest countries in the world giving $26 billion dollars in “aid” to top up Israel’s genocide fund.
It seems clear to me that the genocide in Palestine is largely being used as testing and funding grounds for US, Israel, and their other cronies (like google perhaps) to accelerate development of more advanced weaponry. They’re not just indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinian people/children. They’re (deliberately) profiting off that suffering.
I was with you until the last bit. They can develop advance weapons just for the sake of spending our insane military budget. They can stockpile them and not use them. Then they just get decommissioned. It’s not a conspiracy driven by the need for US spending or anything, it’s Netanyahu just being Netanyahu.
In general, AI requires a lot of data to build useful models. Warfare would be a unique opportunity to build those models. And the goal is not just spending money, but developing the most effective instruments of war (compared to say the US’ adversaries) to continue militaristic, profit, and geopolitical dominance
In most countries, you have many parties, each taking specific stances on issues. You can vote for a party knowing they would oppose aid to Israel. However, your party is unlikely to win an outright majority of seats in parliament, so they need to form a coalition with other parties to rule.
The thing about US Politics is that coalitions form into the parties. Just because you disagree with some high profile democrats doesn’t mean that other democrats don’t agree with you.
I have never looked at it this way, but I appreciate your take and will take it with me. The US is perpetually under a poorly functioning coalition government. This requires a different mode of operation from the voter's viewpoint I think.
The attorneys general said they object to the Biden administration’s use of Title VI to “advance what it calls ‘environmental justice,’” and complained that the EPA aims to create “a condition in which no racially or economically defined group experiences adverse environmental impacts.”
And why is that bad? EPA’s whole purpose is to regulate industry so no one experiences adverse environmental impacts. They often don’t get it right, but they’re doing more than most. I don’t understand why these AGs and governors hate their constituents so much.
My roommate went on to work for environmental protection eventually reporting to the EPA. He left for a job with Michelin because he said it was really depressing playing Earth’s sin tax collector, putting a price on environmental damages that customers were more than happy to pay instead of actually fixing the issues.
“Your honor, the EPA is trying to make it so people don’t get cancer from the industries I represent, and that is a gal-dang TRAVESTY!” -Bible Thumping Republican AG.
commondreams.org
Newest