Minnesota didn't pass an RFRA law, but it does have court decisions that have much the same effect. If this law passes, parents with sense should file suit based on those decisions claiming that the law interferes with their decision, based on religious convictions, to allow their teenage children access to that restricted information.
It's performative nonsense, all right, but not about getting the shot. The MAGA-heads wanted to support whatever their demi-god RFK Jr. said, right up until the point where it was their own kids' faces getting eaten. It's the same as being absolutely opposed to any sort of abortion right up until it's their daughter that needs one, or being dead-set against Federal aid to those deadbeat states right up until it's their town and their house that got flattened by a tornado or flooded by a hurricane or major storm, or being opposed to any sort of social safety net until it's them laid off and can't find any work.
You shouldn't be surprised he's criticizing Trump's policies. After all, he wants to keep on being Sheriff for Life, and those policies are riling up his constituents and getting them angry at anyone associated with those policies (like him). Whole-heartedly supporting those policies isn't the way you get re-elected.
Similarly about his walking-back. He's trying to also keep his GOP benefactors happy enough to keep helping him, so he's taking advantage of what cops know: the footage of the perp walk makes the headlines, while 6 months later the news about all charges being dropped because the cops had nothing runs on page 6 of the Lifestyle section if at all. All his voters will remember is him criticizing Trump, his walk-back placates the GOP money men enough he doesn't lose all that sweet sweet campaign cash.
I think that was a lesson to lawyers to check first before signing off on anything. Also, with this ruling in hand the client's got a solid case for malpractice against their attorney which will be yet another object lesson to lawyers.
There's no mention of what's being done regarding the trial judge, but I'd think there's going to be some internal discussion about penalties.
I think I can counter the article's idea that the AI is being used as a scapegoat by a single question: if a person had said the same things the AI did, occupied the AI's part in the conversations, would that person be a valid target for this lawsuit? I think the answer is clearly "Yes.". So why should the AI or the company behind it escape liability?
If it were an employee of the company that engaged in those conversations, we'd certainly hold them liable. If they produced the company manuals and documentation for job procedures showing that the company instructed them that this was the proper way to respond to the person's half of the conversation, we'd likewise hold the company liable for giving their employees those instructions. The company knew, or should clearly have known (since there's sufficient evidence of this behavior on the record), that their chatbot would do things like this and took no steps to stop it from happening. Willful negligence isn't grounds to get out of being held responsible.
The sad thing is that you should take what Trump says seriously in the same way you should take what the Joker says seriously. Because they're literally an insane clown with only a tenuous hold on reality, but they're an insane clown with a tanker-truck full of SmileX who absolutely will blanket the city with it. The people who claim you shouldn't take him seriously or literally? Are the ones who paid him to do that and are now worried someone might connect the dots that lead back to them.
Unfortunately our version of Bruce Wayne really is the brainless billionaire he-bimbo Batman's secret identity pretends to be.
This is where the AI bros accepting the error rates in their models would've worked in their favor. Had they not tied their star to AI infallibility, they could've just noted the way the models are prone to hallucinate things, played the clip of ED-209 in the board-room, and finished with "Is this what your Secretary of Defense should be turning loose on the battlefield, where our soldiers are closer than the enemy, without supervision?".
Porter's statement at the end of the first quote from him sounds a lot to me like "Well, we won't be making that mistake again.". That's probably the worst-case outcome for the DOJ. Judges starting to vet applicable law in detail for every warrant without relying on prosecutors' statements about what law applies not only makes it harder for DOJ to slip things through, it slows down the entire process of applying for warrants even when the DOJ is being honest. This is all the last thing DOJ wants, especially given that it's lost all it's qualified people and has to depend on staff that's prone to making mistakes. That path leads to judges not just not trusting the DOJ but actively distrusting it, going from just looking for problems to assuming there are problems until proven otherwise.
This is where it'd be nice to have a Federal anti-SLAPP law in place. Then you could simply separate claims about the content the platform selects for recommendation from claims about the user-generated content itself. The content is attributed to the user, Section 230 applies to trying to hold the platform liable for it. The recommendation is attributed to the platform, and the anti-SLAPP law would apply to any lawsuit over that. It'd be on the plaintiff to show that the recommendation falls into the handful of exceptions to First Amendment protection, and the judge can rule on that without involving the platform at all. That takes all the wind out of the sails of the people trying to get rid of Section 230.
The response should be for for Kinsella to just say "I was appointed by the court. I can only be fired by the court, or if the President nominates someone for the position and the Senate confirms them. Until then, I'll perform the duties of the office I was appointed to.". Then the courts back him up by refusing to accept Trump's "appointee" as having any authority.
You can't tell before they show symptoms, yes. But you know how long they could have been contagious before showing symptoms, so anyone anywhere they were in that period also could have been exposed and would be required to quarantine. Expand the quarantine coverage every time one of those quarantinees develops symptoms.
Yes, that's going to turn into a nightmare in very short order. That's the point. Make it such a nightmare that the first time it happens public opinion even in the most conservative areas turns vehemently against the exemptions because of the pain they cause.
I'd prefer if the anti-vaxxers grew a brain, or if the politicians or the courts stood up and said "No." to the nonsense. That doesn't seem like it happens.
I say let them have their exemptions, but only on the condition that any of them exposed to measles etc. must strictly quarantine until a doctor confirms they aren't contagious anymore. Your kid gets it? They're confined to home until they get over it. As is anyone else in the household who's had contact with the kid. That means no going to work, no opening the door for anyone, strict quarantine. Violation of quarantine punishable by forced quarantine under guard. We can use those warehouses the DHS wants to buy to hold them.
I had a notional way to respond to anti-maskers during COVID:
AM: some stupid comment about masks
Me: You heard about that outbreak of hybrid Ebola-Marburg-, right? begins to take off mask
AM: You can't seriously be worried about getting infected by something from some third-world country? This is the USA.
Me: Oh, no, the mask isn't to protect me from it. It's to protect you from catching it from me.
AM: PANICS!!!
I'd simplify things even further: bodily autonomy applies to more than just your body. Everybody else has bodily autonomy too, and you don't have the right to expose them to high contagious diseases without their consent. Vaccine mandates simply codify the common understanding that nobody reasonable would be willing to strictly quarantine themselves just because they didn't want to get vaccinated.
One thing to remember is that, regardless of the site's stated policies or promises, the government will certainly require the site to be able to prove they verified a user's age and that the user was over 18 at the time. This requires storing all the information used to verify the user's age indefinitely.
It's simple: MAGA's goal is to eliminate government. They've said as much in so many words since the mid-70s. They've OK with government taking money from other people and giving it to them, but they'd really rather cut out the middle-man and do it themselves. Their original motto was "Starve the beast.", referring to starving government of funds to do anything.
Even when companies were fighting to get employees, we knew what the game was. During that boom in hiring, recall that most employees would job-hop every couple of years because the hiring bonuses and raise you got at the new job were the only way you got a raise at all. The consultants the execs hire to advise them on recruiting and retention always advocate building a cult around the company, but few employees in tech drink the Kool-Aid.
When I hear things like this, I think of the old Soviet Union bankrupting itself chasing the entirely-imaginary "Star Wars" program the United States was pursuing that was supposed to make ICBMs obsolete.
At some point, piracy becomes the only option left.
Minnesota didn't pass an RFRA law, but it does have court decisions that have much the same effect. If this law passes, parents with sense should file suit based on those decisions claiming that the law interferes with their decision, based on religious convictions, to allow their teenage children access to that restricted information.
It's performative nonsense, all right, but not about getting the shot. The MAGA-heads wanted to support whatever their demi-god RFK Jr. said, right up until the point where it was their own kids' faces getting eaten. It's the same as being absolutely opposed to any sort of abortion right up until it's their daughter that needs one, or being dead-set against Federal aid to those deadbeat states right up until it's their town and their house that got flattened by a tornado or flooded by a hurricane or major storm, or being opposed to any sort of social safety net until it's them laid off and can't find any work.
You shouldn't be surprised he's criticizing Trump's policies. After all, he wants to keep on being Sheriff for Life, and those policies are riling up his constituents and getting them angry at anyone associated with those policies (like him). Whole-heartedly supporting those policies isn't the way you get re-elected. Similarly about his walking-back. He's trying to also keep his GOP benefactors happy enough to keep helping him, so he's taking advantage of what cops know: the footage of the perp walk makes the headlines, while 6 months later the news about all charges being dropped because the cops had nothing runs on page 6 of the Lifestyle section if at all. All his voters will remember is him criticizing Trump, his walk-back placates the GOP money men enough he doesn't lose all that sweet sweet campaign cash.
I can just hear him responding to that: "Of course I recognize that. Why else did you think I made those songs?".
I think that was a lesson to lawyers to check first before signing off on anything. Also, with this ruling in hand the client's got a solid case for malpractice against their attorney which will be yet another object lesson to lawyers. There's no mention of what's being done regarding the trial judge, but I'd think there's going to be some internal discussion about penalties.
I think I can counter the article's idea that the AI is being used as a scapegoat by a single question: if a person had said the same things the AI did, occupied the AI's part in the conversations, would that person be a valid target for this lawsuit? I think the answer is clearly "Yes.". So why should the AI or the company behind it escape liability? If it were an employee of the company that engaged in those conversations, we'd certainly hold them liable. If they produced the company manuals and documentation for job procedures showing that the company instructed them that this was the proper way to respond to the person's half of the conversation, we'd likewise hold the company liable for giving their employees those instructions. The company knew, or should clearly have known (since there's sufficient evidence of this behavior on the record), that their chatbot would do things like this and took no steps to stop it from happening. Willful negligence isn't grounds to get out of being held responsible.
The sad thing is that you should take what Trump says seriously in the same way you should take what the Joker says seriously. Because they're literally an insane clown with only a tenuous hold on reality, but they're an insane clown with a tanker-truck full of SmileX who absolutely will blanket the city with it. The people who claim you shouldn't take him seriously or literally? Are the ones who paid him to do that and are now worried someone might connect the dots that lead back to them. Unfortunately our version of Bruce Wayne really is the brainless billionaire he-bimbo Batman's secret identity pretends to be.
This is where the AI bros accepting the error rates in their models would've worked in their favor. Had they not tied their star to AI infallibility, they could've just noted the way the models are prone to hallucinate things, played the clip of ED-209 in the board-room, and finished with "Is this what your Secretary of Defense should be turning loose on the battlefield, where our soldiers are closer than the enemy, without supervision?".
Porter's statement at the end of the first quote from him sounds a lot to me like "Well, we won't be making that mistake again.". That's probably the worst-case outcome for the DOJ. Judges starting to vet applicable law in detail for every warrant without relying on prosecutors' statements about what law applies not only makes it harder for DOJ to slip things through, it slows down the entire process of applying for warrants even when the DOJ is being honest. This is all the last thing DOJ wants, especially given that it's lost all it's qualified people and has to depend on staff that's prone to making mistakes. That path leads to judges not just not trusting the DOJ but actively distrusting it, going from just looking for problems to assuming there are problems until proven otherwise.
This is where it'd be nice to have a Federal anti-SLAPP law in place. Then you could simply separate claims about the content the platform selects for recommendation from claims about the user-generated content itself. The content is attributed to the user, Section 230 applies to trying to hold the platform liable for it. The recommendation is attributed to the platform, and the anti-SLAPP law would apply to any lawsuit over that. It'd be on the plaintiff to show that the recommendation falls into the handful of exceptions to First Amendment protection, and the judge can rule on that without involving the platform at all. That takes all the wind out of the sails of the people trying to get rid of Section 230.
The response should be for for Kinsella to just say "I was appointed by the court. I can only be fired by the court, or if the President nominates someone for the position and the Senate confirms them. Until then, I'll perform the duties of the office I was appointed to.". Then the courts back him up by refusing to accept Trump's "appointee" as having any authority.
You can't tell before they show symptoms, yes. But you know how long they could have been contagious before showing symptoms, so anyone anywhere they were in that period also could have been exposed and would be required to quarantine. Expand the quarantine coverage every time one of those quarantinees develops symptoms. Yes, that's going to turn into a nightmare in very short order. That's the point. Make it such a nightmare that the first time it happens public opinion even in the most conservative areas turns vehemently against the exemptions because of the pain they cause. I'd prefer if the anti-vaxxers grew a brain, or if the politicians or the courts stood up and said "No." to the nonsense. That doesn't seem like it happens.
I say let them have their exemptions, but only on the condition that any of them exposed to measles etc. must strictly quarantine until a doctor confirms they aren't contagious anymore. Your kid gets it? They're confined to home until they get over it. As is anyone else in the household who's had contact with the kid. That means no going to work, no opening the door for anyone, strict quarantine. Violation of quarantine punishable by forced quarantine under guard. We can use those warehouses the DHS wants to buy to hold them.
I had a notional way to respond to anti-maskers during COVID: AM: some stupid comment about masks Me: You heard about that outbreak of hybrid Ebola-Marburg-, right? begins to take off mask AM: You can't seriously be worried about getting infected by something from some third-world country? This is the USA. Me: Oh, no, the mask isn't to protect me from it. It's to protect you from catching it from me. AM: PANICS!!!
I'd simplify things even further: bodily autonomy applies to more than just your body. Everybody else has bodily autonomy too, and you don't have the right to expose them to high contagious diseases without their consent. Vaccine mandates simply codify the common understanding that nobody reasonable would be willing to strictly quarantine themselves just because they didn't want to get vaccinated.
One thing to remember is that, regardless of the site's stated policies or promises, the government will certainly require the site to be able to prove they verified a user's age and that the user was over 18 at the time. This requires storing all the information used to verify the user's age indefinitely.
It's simple: MAGA's goal is to eliminate government. They've said as much in so many words since the mid-70s. They've OK with government taking money from other people and giving it to them, but they'd really rather cut out the middle-man and do it themselves. Their original motto was "Starve the beast.", referring to starving government of funds to do anything.
Even when companies were fighting to get employees, we knew what the game was. During that boom in hiring, recall that most employees would job-hop every couple of years because the hiring bonuses and raise you got at the new job were the only way you got a raise at all. The consultants the execs hire to advise them on recruiting and retention always advocate building a cult around the company, but few employees in tech drink the Kool-Aid.
When I hear things like this, I think of the old Soviet Union bankrupting itself chasing the entirely-imaginary "Star Wars" program the United States was pursuing that was supposed to make ICBMs obsolete.