• 0 Posts
  • 214 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • “We immediately began to sink, they saw that… They heard us all screaming, and yet they still left us,” he told the BBC.

    "The first child who died was my cousin’s son… After that it was one by one. Another child, another child, then my cousin himself disappeared. By the morning seven or eight children had died.

    It replied that its staff worked “tirelessly with the utmost professionalism, a strong sense of responsibility and respect for human life and fundamental rights”, adding that they were “in full compliance with the country’s international obligations”






  • The person who predicted 70% chance of AI doom is Daniel Kokotajlo, who quit OpenAI because of it not taking this seriously enough. The quote you have there is a statement by OpenAI, not by Kokotajlo, this is all explicit in the article. The idea that this guy is motivated by trying to do marketing for OpenAI is just wrong, the article links to some of his extensive commentary where he is advocating for more government oversight specifically of OpenAI and other big companies instead of the favorable regulations that company is pushing for. The idea that his belief in existential risk is disingenuous also doesn’t make sense, it’s clear that he and other people concerned about this take it very seriously.



  • I don’t think the use of the word “expose” in that sentence is meant to assert that the core of satire is that it must be right. Satire is a type of media/expression, it would make little sense to have a taxonomy of media where what genre something is depends on the personal political affiliations and beliefs of the observer, where saying what genre something is in is a declaration of those beliefs.

    Why object to calling it satire? It’s obviously closely copying the format of other media primarily known by that label, I don’t think there’s any other term that works as well to describe what sort of thing it is.





  • Maybe, but I think it is possible that at some point it could become permanently too late for that. If your every move is tracked, if your thoughts and actions are all anticipated and directed, if automated systems can silence or kill anyone, we can lose all possible agency. If the entities retaining agency find a way to be sustainable and stable, things can stay that way indefinitely. People often seem to think that we’ll always get another chance, and given enough time things may change, but I think it is very likely that we will lose, with finality.




  • For me the problem is that virtually all political content and discussion online is very low information. Generally no one is conveying anything I haven’t already heard many times, it’s mostly remixing slogans and truisms and finding different ways of expressing the same simplified opinion. Questioning that stuff or asking for nuance to be addressed gets met with aggression. The more I’m exposed to it the more I feel like my brain is rotting, definitely does not feel like I’m learning things.


  • I feel like reading statutes is unreliable because a lot of how the law works is how courts interpret the law, which can be very different from the commonsense interpretation of the letter of the law. Lacking broader context, I can’t know from just this exactly what the consequences might be. Here’s some parts that are possibly concerning though:

    The Commission may, in its discretion, prescribe the forms of any and all accounts, records, and memoranda to be kept by carriers subject to this chapter, including the accounts, records, and memoranda of the movement of traffic

    Not sure if this increases the ability of the government to spy on people through their ISPs or if that remains the same.

    (a) Requirement to restrict access (1) Prohibited conduct Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

    Some states have been experimenting with broad bans on online porn sites and requiring those sites and also social media sites to demand id from all users, maybe this provision could give a future FCC the power to apply this sort of thing to the internet nationally? Although this section already explicitly mentions the internet which is confusing if this whole thing is only recently being made relevant to the internet.

    There are provisions about the FCC being able to come up with rules for the prevention of robocalls, maybe this could be generalized to prohibit some forms of automated network traffic?


  • Relevant Snowden quote:

    Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say

    I pay for vpn service anonymously even though I probably don’t need to, as my main use is torrenting. I can see a remote possibility that vpn payment records at some point end up being used against pirates, even just as some kind of risk factor flagging, in the same vein as what you are saying: “If someone is paying for a vpn, surely they’re doing something bad?” In countries that really want to crack down on speech and human rights, vpns get banned outright to varying success, and if you can’t pay anonymously in that situation you’re pretty screwed, this hurts those people.

    In general I think everyone should be trying for some level of actual privacy online as a matter of principle, just because of how everyone being fully tracked and observed puts way too much power in the hands of those watching.



  • It’s worth mentioning that obscenity laws apply whether Net Neutrality is a thing or not

    Couldn’t this reclassification affect that sort of thing in a jurisdiction sense though? Again, I like net neutrality, mostly because the idea of something like the standard internet option being Facebook only is terrifying, but it sounds like a big part of this is reclassifying ISPs to be subject to rules made by the FCC. I’d really rather it be a law passed by congress, and I worry about how federal agencies might abuse their powers over the internet when those powers are expanded in general. I’m not really sure how much it generally expands their authority over the internet, but it seems like it might.