Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3334 3335 [3336] 3337 3338 ... 3511

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 3533579 times)

Travis Bickle

  • Bay Watcher
  • *paranoia intensifies*
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50025 on: November 20, 2022, 12:47:02 am »

Trump is back on Twitter..
The greatest Twitter user to ever live will probably stick to Truth Social for the time being just to prove a point.
Logged
Cum his qui oderunt pacem eram pacificus.

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50026 on: November 20, 2022, 01:00:19 am »

Twitter looks to be dying anyway.

Possibly being beaten to death.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

MrRoboto75

  • Bay Watcher
  • Belongs in the Trash!
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50027 on: November 20, 2022, 01:24:13 am »

to shreads, you say...
Logged
I consume
I purchase
I consume again

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50028 on: November 20, 2022, 01:25:06 am »

The world cup is absolutely going to destroy it, the site barely makes it through each year apparently, had all the staff with the experience necessary been in place with bosses who desperately wanted them to succeed it would have been rough.

Now?

Fuck, anybody got some popcorn?
Logged

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50029 on: November 20, 2022, 01:35:07 am »

Especially this World Cup. It’s been controversial since it was awarded in ‘08 and has been getting steadily worse since.

Yesterday FIFA announced they won’t be selling alcohol in the stadiums (they will in corporate sections) which is 2 days before the competition starts, and today the head of FIFA had a bizarre press conference essentially saying that European countries don’t have any right to tell off Qatar for having shitty human rights and mistreating migrant workers because they’ve been bad for 3,000 years.

That’s before you even get to the football!
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

Duuvian

  • Bay Watcher
  • Internet ≠ Real Life
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50030 on: November 20, 2022, 04:24:52 am »

So I've read there is a lame duck omnibus being worked on of some sort. There is at least one bad (according to the source) internet related bill that might be attached to it with the standard misleading and flowery bill name. There seems to potentially be more than one; techdirt (which I only found recently, thanks Shonus for the link) has seperate articles on others linked in the recent articles, but some are old and I'm not sure what exactly is on the table now or the level of support for each. Some are quite industry driven it appears and one sounded downright authoritarian and the article implied an expansion of mass surveillance,.and another ignores the 4th amendment in a way that would benefit criminals if that still applies in courts for those defendants and methods were not concealed from the courts (my take is that they would likely have private concerns perform the search as agents while avoiding naming them as such for legal reasons related to agency caselaw that require much more stringent rules for agents of the government conducting a search under the 4th). The articles described some bills as partly or mostly good with very, very big flaws and at least one as basically being written to benefit certain industries at the expense of online marketplaces by being far too broad and difficult to comply with to not cripple smaller marketplaces.

Anyone keeping an eye on these things here that has more information?

Here are some links of the more recent of the articles I peruse(I didn't post links to all the articles including info in the first paragraph, these are the most recent two):

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/18/for-the-umpteenth-time-the-inform-act-is-still-unconstitutional-and-has-no-business-being-attached-to-any-bill-congress-needs-to-pass/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/17/bad-news-for-the-internet-congress-looking-to-sneak-in-dangerous-save-the-kids-internet-bill-into-year-end-omnibus/

There were a few more links in the above stories I followed around too, to see what else is cooking, but those were older links and I don't know if they are attached somehow to these or still in progress as different legislation. One when combined with the odd spam campaign being conducted with unusual (to be generous) video titles but still legal content on (rule abiding) porn streaming sites seemed like it may be partially aimed at those sites and industry, especially if it's algorithmically based takedowns/repurcussions now that those keyword conditions have been set. That's just conjecture on my part though. If it got rid of that spam that aspect would be a good thing imo but I fear overreach in the goal of increased societal control. I won't give a link to that article unless it's still looking likely to be included as it touches on much more uncomfortable subjects than even the adult industry, so you'd have to lookon your own for now. The adult industry is already under a lot of pressure and it would not surprise me if this was a continuation of it. I don't participate in this industry or pay for it's products but I think adults who want to should be able to if they prefer and are not coerced or driven by desperation to participate.

Here is a different source from the corporate lobby perspective on the INFORM act:
https://www.technet.org/informact/learnmore/

Here is one on the other bill. It has a Good, Bad, and Ugly breakdown I'll post in the following spoiler to show how it may be a bad bill in portions, despite the noble intentions. Here is the link first.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/11/kosa-would-let-government-control-what-young-people-see-online

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

EDIT: to add links, didn't make it in time before next post sorry. Also I apologize about the uncomfortable topics, but I was somewhat involved in internet freedoms (within reason) activism back in the day and I may feel the urge to strap those dusty shoes back on if these are as flawed and overreaching as I have read. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am incorrect.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2022, 07:26:35 am by Duuvian »
Logged
FINISHED original composition:
https://app.box.com/s/jq526ppvri67astrc23bwvgrkxaicedj

Sort of finished and awaiting remix due to loss of most recent song file before addition of drums:
https://www.box.com/s/s3oba05kh8mfi3sorjm0 <-zguit

Robsoie

  • Bay Watcher
  • Urist McAngry
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50031 on: November 20, 2022, 06:46:33 am »

today the head of FIFA had a bizarre press conference essentially saying that European countries don’t have any right to tell off Qatar for having shitty human rights and mistreating migrant workers because they’ve been bad for 3,000 years.

I listened to some part of that conference and it was one of the most ridiculous attempt of a corrupt guy to suck it up to his "hey take that money" beloved masters.
What he said was so incredibly absurd, moronic and idiotic i wonder how he can look himself in a mirror without laughing at how much of a piece of crap he has been there.
But in the same time he's only the average corrupt fifa head guy, like so many before him and i guess so many after him, you couldn't expect anything other than this  kind of garbage coming from such guy mouth.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2022, 06:49:00 am by Robsoie »
Logged

LuuBluum

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50032 on: November 20, 2022, 03:52:37 pm »


Shakes off bones; emerges from coffin.

Let's walk through both bills. That is, the actual text, and not whatever bullshit has been distilled through word-of-mouth because none of the people posting about this stuff online bother to actually read anything other than other people's takes.

First, KOSA. Let's look at the "big scary thing" that the EFF rants about:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(I'm not going to bother formatting this stuff nicely; you can just read the actual bill)

Notably, this is the third section, after the title and definitions. This is not an actual list of things that all websites are now suddenly legally forced to uphold. This is the goal of the bill, not some dictation. "Has a duty" is not legally enforceable. What is actually being requested here?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Everything listed in 4.a.1. is already either an option or could be made an option without concern. The rest of 4.a. just covers the fact that this should be the default if it's reasonable to presume that the user is a minor, which is generally covered by asking their age. Nothing particularly special there; websites do this already. Everything in 4.b. just requires attaching a minor's account to an account of a parent who has control; nothing special there, either.

Then there's 4.c, which is the enforcement mechanism of section 3. Which entirely constitutes... giving parents a mechanism to report all of the stuff in section 3 to the website runner. This already exists; it's called a report button.

4.d. bars advertising age-restricted things to minors which isn't exactly something to write home about.

Section 5 is just matters of disclosure and telling users all the various information. Nothing special.

Then there's section 6:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Please explain to me how any of the things listed here are the "doomsday mechanisms for the Internet" that the EFF is screaming bloody murder about. "Please report the number of minors on your platform once a year." Ooh, real scary. This is literally "please bring in a third party to report on your moderation activities regarding minors" and that's not exactly a significant thing.

Section 7 then outlines all of the requirements of who is eligible to be one of these "third-party researchers". Section 8 is just a guideline for how to approach doing market research on minors.

Section 9, the infamous "age verification study":
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note the lack of any sort of developing this mechanism; just evaluating what such a mechanism would even be, and whether it's feasible. EFF naturally jumps to the conclusion that they'll mandate such a hypothetical system, but of course, that's not in the bill. That's just the EFF tilting at legislation-shaped windmills, and every other tech reporter taking their word as gospel.

The rest is just boilerplate enforcement (it's civil, so we're talking lawsuits) and implementation (making a council to figure out how the hell to do it).

The only thing I see coming of KOSA, assuming it even does end up added, is that more websites are going to ask your age when you make an account.
That's about it.

Now, onto INFORM.

I'm not gonna bother breaking out into snippets what's in the text because it's rather straightforward. If selling something through an online marketplace as a third-party in "high volume" ("a third party seller... who, in any continuous 12-month period during the previous 24 months, has entered into 200 or more discrete sales or transactions of new or unused consumer products resulting in the accumulation of an aggregate total of $5,000 or more in gross revenues."), you're obliged to provide your name and contact information. Notably, if you lack a business address to provide, then the only requirement is country (and if applicable, state) or the online platform simply saying that there is no business address available.

Notably, none of this applies if you're just selling this stuff through your own storefront. Only if you're trying to sell your "politically provocative" book on Amazon, sans publisher.

No, I will not reply to anything else here. I linked the text of the bills; those are going to be more authoritative than anything else.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50033 on: November 21, 2022, 07:12:10 am »

EDIT: to add links, didn't make it in time before next post sorry. Also I apologize about the uncomfortable topics, but I was somewhat involved in internet freedoms (within reason) activism back in the day and I may feel the urge to strap those dusty shoes back on if these are as flawed and overreaching as I have read. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am incorrect.
Nah it's always good to hear another take from you Duuvian. It is primarily in the name of protecting the innocence of children that the government does tend to destroy the innocence of children, ultimately to decide what the future generations are allowed to think and speak on. Reminds me of when kids were getting reported for terrorism for searching up terms like Caliphate at school, even if they were just into history or played CKii

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50034 on: November 21, 2022, 06:44:48 pm »

Criminalizing knowledge is the only true evil
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Duuvian

  • Bay Watcher
  • Internet ≠ Real Life
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50035 on: November 22, 2022, 03:27:37 am »

Please explain to me how any of the things listed here are the "doomsday mechanisms for the Internet" that the EFF is screaming bloody murder about. "Please report the number of minors on your platform once a year." Ooh, real scary. This is literally "please bring in a third party to report on your moderation activities regarding minors" and that's not exactly a significant thing.

I can't with what you've listed, because you listed the things that aren't what the links were complaining about; in fact it seems they were in agreement with you on most of that.

You mentioned enforcement provisions being in the wrong section; what you described was the objective of that section, not the enforcement.

In particular, 10.b.1.A


The standard of reason to believe is rather broad. I don't have enough jurist knowledge to know if that is the standard in all or most civil action, but being able to enjoin websites on belief seems like overreach to me at first glance. Injunctions are a high bar to have granted, but I don't know if the "reason to believe" standard would apply at that point (meaning would a "reason to believe" stated as in the AG's heart be enough to grant an injunction on it's own). At that point the imminent harm for an injunction would be much easier to argue as the government has an interest in protecting minors that overrides almost every other interest.

Here is a short description of the reason to believe standard:
https://1library.net/article/defining-standard-reason-believe-standard.z1588jpy

This enforcement section does only apply to what is in the bill, however, it will also extend to whatever regulation is further promulgated by the newly established advisory council once that is concluded. This could be nothing of course, as you say.

I actually would not be against the theory of age verifications built into things at the operating system, but only in the narrowly tailored application on hardware specifically manufactured for minors. This isn't a thing though; adults and minors commonly use the same device models so it may require a mandate of seperate product lines of minor's and adult's devices and that seems unlikely. I also think it's unlikely already that minors are supposed to be able to install an OS as I'm pretty sure there are contracts involved when you install one (at least Windows does IIRC). I'd even be ok with it being a checkbox of "are you or the intended user a minor" or some such on OS instllation and other covered things, as that is much more narrowly tailored than asking everyone who owns a device their specific age (this would be outstanding for unrelated data collection, such as for marketing purposes, but bad for users of the devices), and at that point I see no issue with clarifying the age range for minor users of the device after being established as such by the checkbox, if people far more knowledgable than I think it's a good idea.

Here though is my primary concern: that a broadly applicable bill due to the reason to believe standard could be politically applied, and as it's written broadly, be applied past the intent of the bill.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23314536/prelim-order.pdf
From the above link, which is text of a district court (a lower federal court so this will likely be appealed) of N. Florida preliminary injunction motion that was granted in part:
"It’s worth keeping in mind that the State
has chosen affirmative action as one of its eight concepts because the State has
deemed it to be repugnant and “noxious to the people of Florida.”

While this is comparing apples and oranges in particular due to being entirely different (one is a proposed bill and the other an injunction order and both on dissimilar subjects), it was easy for me to find without doing serious research (it was linked in another techdirt article) and rather than being comparable, instead reflects the general tone of politics.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2022, 03:50:30 am by Duuvian »
Logged
FINISHED original composition:
https://app.box.com/s/jq526ppvri67astrc23bwvgrkxaicedj

Sort of finished and awaiting remix due to loss of most recent song file before addition of drums:
https://www.box.com/s/s3oba05kh8mfi3sorjm0 <-zguit

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50036 on: November 22, 2022, 02:13:50 pm »

Criminalizing knowledge is the only true evil
Don't worry, there are plenty of peoples with enough resources and clout to fight governments and alphabet corporations trying to monopolise or outlaw knowledge... Like... Elon...

Oh dear

Magmacube_tr

  • Bay Watcher
  • Praise KeK! For He is The Key and The Gate!
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50037 on: November 22, 2022, 11:52:16 pm »

Criminalizing knowledge is the only true evil

BASED
Logged
I must submerge myself in MAGMAAAAAAAAA! daily for 17 cents, which I detest. With a new profile picture!

My gaem. JOIN NAOW!!!

My sigtext. Read if you dare!

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50038 on: November 23, 2022, 04:36:16 am »

You're not allowed to know that
Logged
Love, scriver~

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #50039 on: November 23, 2022, 07:18:58 am »

Freedom is cringe
Pages: 1 ... 3334 3335 [3336] 3337 3338 ... 3511