So that's my question: was the Wired article written by AI (which has no understanding of Section 230 or anything else) and then cleaned up? Or was the article badly written on purpose to get attention? After all, a lot more people will talk about it, and spread the link, if it's wrong, than if it was just another article supporting Section 230.
I think the point is that tech people understand that the term is LLM, but the media has convinced people that this is some kind of artificial intelligence (AI) that will eventually take over the world like Skynet.
Even more cynical explanation: the Irish Examiner stopped paying for blue check marks for its staff, but the spammer paid for his. Therefore, whoever doesn't pay for a blue check mark runs the risk if having their account suspended.
Is registering a credit card really on the list of age validation items? Can't a kid borrow his parent's credit card, type in the information, and then be "verified" as an adult? Though this is probably just one of many issues with this verification process. And is there any proof that the passport photo you upload is actually yours? Will be see a surge in sales of fake passport photos submitted as verification? How long until the verification site is flooded with yet another passport from "Ben Dover" or "Seymour Butz"?
Actually, the genius marketing term is "speeds up to", as in: "We provide speeds up to 10G... even though it was only recorded one time by the one customer who lives q0 feet from the backbone server." But this is the trick of using "up to": companies get away with it as long as there's no push back from consumers. It's like how HealthCare.gov can advertise they have plans "as low as $10 month": one customer got that rate because he's not even making minimum wage, so they advertise that anyone might be able to get that rate.
As has been pointed out on this site, many studies have shown that an overwhelming number of kids actually enjoy social media. Yes, it's terrible that some kids took their lives after they went on social media, hut that's a tragic minority. Why is Congress so set on dragging social media CEO's into hearings and trying to hold them responsible yet not one gun company CEO has ever been investigated for their participation in school shootings. If a social media site is "responsible" for a death of a child, then gun companies should be responsible for mass shootings.
It seems like most (or all) reports about ad-supported tiers make it seem like a good thing. Why isn't there more outrage about how this us double-dipping? People pay a subscription fee, so the streaming service gets their income, but then the streaming service also runs ads, which is more income. I completely understand that free services like network TV, YouTube, and even Freevee need to run ads, and I don't mind watching those ads. But if I'm paying for a service, I don't expect the show or movie to be interrupted by ads. Why aren't these companies called out for their greed? Or is this practice perfectly fine since it returns more money to the investors, even at the expense of delivering a good experience?
I think we're starting to see the real reason why politicians don't like TikTok and want to ban it: because TikTok isn't selling its data to the NSA like the other social media sites. That's just my theory, though, and I don't have any evidence to back it up. ;)
Your example about DC comics suing other companies because of their characters' likeness to Superman is actually incorrect. In the 1950's, DC sued Fawcett Comics saying Shazam was too similar to Superman. In the end, Fawcett ceased publication and the lawsuit didn't go anywhere. Then years later, DC would but up Fawcett's assets and add characters like Shazam (and Black Adam) to the DC universe. Then in the 1980's, DC sued ABC saying The Greatest American Hero was a rip-off of Superman. But the show ended due to low ratings before the lawsuit anywhere. And the reason DC hasn't sued over Homelander is because "The Boys" started its publication at DC!
It would be more than hilarious if this law passed and it was applied to Fox News. Would they really be required to show a warning that their programs may be detrimental to people's health? Though knowing Republicans, any media outlet that supports their propaganda will somehow be exempt from this law.
How many lawsuits will it take for HP to stop doing this? Only one, but it has to cost the company 10% or 20% of their revenue, rather than a tiny fine. At this point, tiny fines are basically a slap on the wrist and a cost of doing business. So a judge need to send a message that repeatedly doing this is not acceptable.
People are saying that piracy is rising because of the fractured streaming services. But why not endorse buying DVD'S and Blu-ray? That way, you have a legal copy that you own, that won't be deleted from a streaming service, and won't move to another service while you're halfway through. And best of all, since it's yours forever, you don't have to worry about a service pulling it because they don't think its worth showing.
What I find interesting is that "sex with a porn star" was never up for debate: the debate is whether Trump paid her with his own money or with campaign funds. Yet there's no outrage over someone having adultery or paying a porn star hush money.
Usually the spam filters are good at blocking spam comments, but how did this article receuve 6 spam comments, all from the same perspective, with links going to spam sites?
I got that email last night. So let me get this straight: one of the largest companies on the planet, which brings in billions of dollars needs MORE money from advertising to fund their shows? I watch Amazon Prime BECAUSE there are no commercials. If I want to want TV with commercials, I'll turn on any of my cable channels. And I don't see if this policy includes movies people pay to rent or buy. If I pay $4.50 to rent a movie, will I have to sit through the same ads as if the movie was shown on network TV? In that case, I'll go to Redbox and rent it, and not give Amazon any more money.
On the other hand, this is actually a smart legal move since it sounds like the podcast name is stuck in limbo until Mathers sits down for a deposition. So until he does that, a judge can't decide if the podcast can keep the name or change it. Sure, it sounds like he's being a jerk, but if he never sits for a deposition, he never loses the case. How long will the podcast wait for him or will they give up and just change their name, in which case, Mathers wins. And again, he didn't have to sit for the deposition and explain himself.
Playing the devil's advocate for a minute: I agree that TikTok should be banned from state owned devices for the simple reason that there's no business reason to use TikTok. The same ban should apply to other websites that don't have a business use case, such as Facebook, person Gmail and Yahoo email, eBay, Easy, and Amazon. I mean, if your company said you couldn't use eBay on your work computer, most people would be okay with it. But if it's TikTok that's getting banned, then that's a first amendment issue and companies are acting xenophobic towards a Chinese company.
I remember when Amazon removed Disney content in some countries because Disney stopped licensing is those countries. At least in that case, people could use their VPN to spoof they were in another country and access the content they paid for. Anyway, if a company is going to delete content that people paid for, shouldn't those people get a refund?
It's interesting how no one in media picks up this point and runs with it. Why did she give her 12 year daughter a phone? Was it to keep up with other kids? What parental restrictions did she put on the phone? Or does she rely on companies like Meta to do the parenting for her? In other words, she shouldn't bring up her daughter if she doesn't want people asking questions about her parenting.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to guess that Amazon's lawyers pull out this claim: People pay for Amazon Prime to get free shipping and faster shipping, so the video streaming service is just a bonus. Though the end result of this argument may be that Amazon is forced to separate the Prime shipping service from Prime video. Then people can choose whether to pay for Prime video or just ftee shipping.