ofcourse

I don’t buy the smaller platforms being hurt more argument.

It’s not hard to prevent undue burden on smaller platforms by adding in the bill that it only applies to platforms with more than $1B in revenue.

We need to get rid of 230 because it has given way too much immunity to the biggest internet companies and they have been simply shrugging away all their responsibilities. Let’s work out how to make this bill work for the people instead of shutting it out.

The Democratic Party’s sole strategy looks like maximizing their big donor and independent votes. So they keep moving toward center-right.

1. That strategy has failed 2/3 last times so may be try changing it Sherlock.
2. The big donors don’t care about anything besides their own personal gain. The only difference is that “Democratic” big donors also pretend they care about the people. May be get on the ground and talk to your constituents instead.
3. Even if you get the independent votes, your main base is completely alienated and does not trust you. So all you will get are the independent votes losing you the election.

This Democratic Party is like the monsters in Scooby Doo - the villain wearing the mask of the common person so they can get closer to you before stabbing in the back.

Why is Bhutan one of the most weird countries? Oh, WIRED.

Sounds like talking points of someone paid off by social media to sow division about the bill.

1. I don’t see why it’s an issue that this would apply to moderation of all user generated content on very large online platforms. That’s the point. The platforms are pushing false and controversial content to drive engagement and have not implemented the necessary guardrails to verify correctness and minimize harm (like, when a post/blog is inciting violence).
2. That’s a definite possibility in the current regime that the bill will be used to silence dissent. But from what it looks, the White House doesn’t need bills to silence dissent. Everything in the country is being done by and fought between the executive and the judiciary with 0 public involvement. At least with a bill, there are >500 people involved in passing/blocking it so a larger surface for people to influence the decision.

I would be more concerned about this bill never seeing the light of day because I don’t think the US Congress of this decade is capable of passing any major laws.

Apple fucked up no doubt. Given how hard they pushed AI as a key feature of IPhone 16 I wouldn’t be surprised if they get a class action lawsuit for this.

But it’s also interesting to read a few things from the article that makes me hopeful for when Apple finally releases the features:

1. Let’s be honest, AI by Google, MS is shit right now. They are claiming the same promises which most of the time don’t work, but Apple chose to delay release until they could get better consistency.
2. The executives are taking personal responsibility? I hope that’s the case and no developers are thrown under the bus for this. I’ve rarely seen an article mention personal executive responsibility from a tech firm for delays and qa issues.
3. I hope marketing gets reigned in so they won’t push other unready features the next few years.
4. I hope Apple releases some open source AI tooling to re-gain good will. Would love to see some more competition in the AI space.

After seeing all the things that Orange is doing both in his first and new terms, Biden’s term feels like a lame Presidency with just complaints about how Republicans wouldn’t allow him to accomplish his agenda. His entire spiel during the election was to save America from another fascist president, and he did the complete opposite by giving away the country to a herd of fascists. History will remember him as the enabling President for fascism.

There’s no pretending who’s calling the shots anymore. The monkey was asked to perform. He is giving his best performance and everyone is watching the (shit)show.

Recent recessions have shown that the top 1% get richer after the recession. It makes sense when you think about the super rich having the cash to invest is now much cheaper stocks and property while everyone else is struggling to make ends meet.

So I wonder how much the Nazi and the monkey want to avoid a recession. The monkey does not have to worry about reelection and the Nazi is a psychopath.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, Canada was well on its path to elect a right leaning government. Trudeau has already resigned and his party was in the gutters. So that tells you how majority of Canadians have been feeling. There is extreme false-facts-driven anti-immigrant sentiment going around, imo, propagated by the same media that is doing so in the US.

Luckily, Nazi musk and his orange monkey’s moves have taken off the veil for some Canadians so there is still some hope for sanity prevailing in their upcoming elections.

The fact that Democrats should be raising their voices as loudly as possible against this admin’s moves but instead a sizable 10 of them voted to censure the 1 Democrat who tried to in fact do that, tells you everything about the Democrats’ plans.

At this point, there are only a handful of them who are rallying their constituents and speaking out about this admin’s atrocities, but the majority is completely MIA. Then they wonder why their voters are MIA during the elections.

The era of US-Canada being brothers in arms is over. I doubt US will be receiving any favors in the future without something in return. And if Canada chooses to expand their supply chains outside of the US, which they 100% should, there’ll be no coming back to a scale of trade as it exists today.

Athletes have always leveraged unfair advantages in sports. There’s a reason there’s super tall players in basketball and short ones in gymnastics. May be they should enforce that average height of teams must match global averages. Countries with fewer resources just can’t support athletes in many sports so why not make that more fair?

There’s research showing that some women athletes (i.e., born with female reproductive organs) have higher testosterone levels than many men, and even some male athletes. So why are they allowed to compete in women sports instead of men?

There’s a lot of ways to make sports more fair. Banning transgender people without fair science based facts is not one of them and is plain bigotry. It’s like saying an athlete on anti-depressants should be banned because they are happier and more motivated so have an unfair advantage.