I find doing AI impressions an effective trolling technique: beep bip boop & some fun punctuation ‒−–—―…:.

They can also be funny with them. Comedy doesn’t need or care about preconceived constraints. Irreverence that challenges our arrogant conformity & self-indulgent vanity that anything is sacred or off-limits is a goal of comedy. It’s part of gaining humility to question & laugh at ourselves & conceited ideas.

yes

or primaries

a spoiler effect happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating

Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.

That the US voting system lacks the sincere favorite criterion is mathematical fact: lesser-evil voting is necessary to avoid losing the best chance of getting anyone preferable to the worst major candidate. Denying that is like denying laws of physics. You can’t coerce logic & causality to your will. Just because you don’t understand that doesn’t mean others don’t. Primaries exist to select better major party candidates.

Viable 3rd party candidates requires voting reform, which again requires passing those reforms through the current system.

Still unnecessary & less effective than less invasive alternatives that already exist & the government could promote. To quote another comment

Governments have commissioned enough studies to know that education, training, and parental controls filtering content at the receiving end are more effective & less infringing of civil rights than laws imposing restrictions & penalties on website operators to comply with online age verification. Laws could instead allocate resources to promote the former in a major way, setup independent evaluations reporting the effectiveness of child protection technologies to the public, promote standards & the development of better standards in the industry. Laws of the latter kind simply aren’t needed & also suffer technical defects.

The most fatal technical defect is they lack enforceability on websites outside their jurisdiction. They’re limited to HTTP (or successor). They practically rule out dynamic content (chat, fora) for minors unless that content is dynamically prescreened. Parental control filters lack all these defects, and they don’t adversely impact privacy, fundamental rights, and law enforcement.

Governments know better & choose worse, because it’s not about promoting the public good, it’s about imposing control.

Wrong technical solution to a made up problem.

Governments have commissioned enough studies to know that education, training, and parental controls filtering content at the receiving end are more effective & less infringing of civil rights than laws imposing restrictions & penalties on website operators to comply with online age verification. Laws could instead allocate resources to promote the former in a major way, setup independent evaluations reporting the effectiveness of child protection technologies to the public, promote standards & the development of better standards in the industry. Laws of the latter kind simply aren’t needed & also suffer technical defects.

The most fatal technical defect is they lack enforceability on websites outside their jurisdiction. They’re limited to HTTP (or successor). They practically rule out dynamic content (chat, fora) for minors unless that content is dynamically prescreened. Parental control filters lack all these defects, and they don’t adversely impact privacy, fundamental rights, and law enforcement.

Governments know better & choose worse, because it’s not about promoting the public good, it’s about imposing control.

Back when the US federal courts didn’t suck, they put a temporary injunction on an online age verification law from the 90s (COPA), adding

the Court is acutely cognizant of its charge under the law of this country not to protect the majoritarian will at the expense of stifling the rights embodied in the Constitution. […] I without hesitation acknowledge the duty imposed on the Court and the greater good such duty serves. Indeed, perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.

Age verification laws threaten online safety, privacy, & fundamental liberties, they don’t restrict sources outside their jurisdiction, they rely on criminal sanctions & law enforcement resources, and they’re unnecessary & ineffective. In the balance between fundamental rights & other “compelling interests”, government has a duty to minimize compromises of fundamental rights in meeting its “compelling interests”, and age verification laws fail to strike that balance.

Laws can do better than impose restrictions & penalties. When that same court made the injunction permanent, the judge wrote

Moreover, defendant contends that: (1) filters currently exist and, thus, cannot be considered a less restrictive alternative to COPA; and that (2) the private use of filters cannot be deemed a less restrictive alternative to COPA because it is not an alternative which the government can implement. These contentions have been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in ruling upon the efficacy of the 1999 preliminary injunction by this court. The Supreme Court wrote:

Congress undoubtedly may act to encourage the use of filters. We have held that Congress can give strong incentives to schools and libraries to use them. It could also take steps to promote their development by industry, and their use by parents. It is incorrect, for that reason, to say that filters are part of the current regulatory status quo. The need for parental cooperation does not automatically disqualify a proposed less restrictive alternative. In enacting COPA, Congress said its goal was to prevent the “widespread availability of the Internet” from providing “opportunities for minors to access materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can frustrate parental supervision or control.” COPA presumes that parents lack the ability, not the will, to monitor what their children see. By enacting programs to promote use of filtering software, Congress could give parents that ability without subjecting protected speech to severe penalties.

I also agree and conclude that in conjunction with the private use of filters, the government may promote and support their use by, for example, providing further education and training programs to parents and caregivers, giving incentives or mandates to ISP’s to provide filters to their subscribers, directing the developers of computer operating systems to provide filters and parental controls as a part of their products (Microsoft’s new operating system, Vista, now provides such features, see Finding of Fact 91), subsidizing the purchase of filters for those who cannot afford them, and by performing further studies and recommendations regarding filters.

Adult supervision, child education on online safety & literacy, parental controls & filters are more effective at less expense to fundamental rights. With client-based filters alone, numerous legislative studies (eg, COPA Commission, NRC report) & court decision findings pointed out more effectiveness than age verification laws in that filters

• block at the receiving end, so they aren’t limited by geographic origin (outside legal jurisdiction)
• operate on any protocol (not only HTTP or successors) regardless of dynamism (eg, live chats or media)
• give parents control to tailor filters per child (eg, age-appropriateness)
• can more granularly filter out sections of a web page rather than entire web pages or web sites
• can filter out other kinds of objectionable content (eg, violence, hate speech)
• can be monitored with logs & corrected.

They also don’t obstruct adults who don’t use them. Newer studies continue to confirm that.

Lawmakers are aware the studies they’ve commissioned recommend more effective & less invasive alternatives, and they could pass laws following those recommendations, yet they don’t. Government is simply failing in its duties to make better laws that respect civil liberties & defend those civil liberties from unjust laws.

AI companies are making a choice when they design unsafe platforms.

The right choice.

Technology to prevent this harm already exists: Anthropic’s Claude, for example, consistently tried to dissuade users from acts of violence.

That shit’s awfully condescending & paternalistic.

AI platforms are becoming a weapon for extremists and school shooters.

For deficient plans: AI gets shit wrong so often, we should probably encourage idiots to concoct their “foolproof” plans on it.

Demand AI companies put people’s safety ahead of profit.

Nah: thought isn’t action. Liberty means respecting others’ freedom to have “unsafe” thoughts. Someone else could pose the same questions to audit security weaknesses & prepare safety plans.

Moreover, all of this was already possible with a search engine & notes. Information alarmists can get fucked.

Not even then: people are fallible, partners can cheat, and admitting that creates a compromising predicament for the person least likely to admit it. It’s in everyone’s interest of health to simply take all sensible precautions regardless. Only reason not to is when you want to conceive.

And? The word enshittification is not a great contribution to society.

immiserated and precaratized

dafuq?

Whereas the people who choose when and how to use AI — the centaurs

que?

The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide

A bit contrived?

Thanks for bringing us this extraterrestrial perspective, OP. Extraterrestrial voices matter! 🫡

Cling to semantics if you need to, but the spirit of what I said was true.

Is it? Doesn’t seem a valid argument.

Hitler embraced the construction of the autobahn. Therefore, the autobahn is evil.

operates the same way (guilt by association fallacy). I agree bluesky “was always going to shit” for entirely different reasons like repeating the same mistakes of twitter.

Maybe you could offer a more logical argument for your conclusion instead of dragging the discussion into irrationality?

Explain “pedophiles”.

and they’re taking it out on the trees. What did the trees do to deserve that?

Are you referring to yourself by claiming your ignorance somehow matches legal expertise? Cool ad hominem, by the way: fallacies (including strawman of the transformative use argument), blame-shifting when you can’t back claims with credible evidence, & self-indulgent vanity are the hallmarks of trolls. Way to out yourself, buddy. 😄

Don’t need to: their lawyers understood the law & lawyered successfully so far.

Precedent means we can cite it, so yes, this helps a bit. The rest you wrote is a fair bit of assumption or unnecessary: evidence to back your points would help. Otherwise, it just looks like inconclusive defeatism.

Moby Dick

Public domain.

You could also try understanding the law

§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

with particular attention to factors 1 (especially transformation) & 4.

If that’s not for you, though, then you should definitely try that with a copyright work (Disney?) & report back on how that went.