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.

I thought it was redundant since it’s not a novel idea, & there were existing, broader expressions that weren’t going to descend into another way to say “shitty”.

• deliberate service degradation
• cheapening quality
• cheaping out
• cutting corners
• skimping
• cost cutting
• cannibalization

Enshittification added nothing new except make it hyperspecific to online platforms as if that’s useful. (It isn’t.) How fucking insightful: that insight came preenshittified & popular media lapped it up.

If they actually worked, sure.

Not sure that part’s absolutely necessary: if it’s publicly promoted to the extent that parents don’t have an excuse (eg, time, cost, access) other than low willpower/interest they are reasonably accountable for, then the public has fulfilled its duty to empower parents to direct the rearing of their children while protecting everyone’s fundamental rights. However, I also think interested parents would popularly adopt voluntary solutions with enough public resources committed to promote & provide them in a major way. While the public expense may seem extra, I think the government’s duty to protect fundamental rights justifies the expense.

Another comment mentions legislatively commissioned studies that suggest solutions similar to yours, but broader & less intrusive. Recommendations included

• A broad, national, private sector conversation should be encouraged on the development of next-generation systems for labeling, rating, and identifying content reflecting the convergence of old and new media.
• Government and the private sector should undertake a major education campaign to promote public awareness of technologies and methods available to protect children online.

They also stressed the importance of adult involvement to provide child supervision & teach children internet safety, information literacy, & skills to evaluate inappropriate messages. If the government had pursued these recommendations (it didn’t), I think it would have succeeded.

It’s also worth noting those & newer studies found client-side filters more effective than age verification for a number of reasons.

• false positives & negatives are low & can be corrected
• filters all internet protocols (not only HTTP or successors) regardless of geographic origin (including those beyond legal jurisdiction) or dynamism (eg, live chats also filtered)
• highly granular (eg, can filter sections inside web pages)

You obviously don’t buy porn magazines for your teens and don’t show news from war zones to your young kids and keep eye on the movies/shows they watch

Though Australia isn’t the US, the US federal courts had an interesting opinion there: parents may always allow their children to access protected speech. Even with sex-related materials, the Supreme Court has stated

the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their children.

They regarded as constitutionally defective laws that impose a single standard of public morality. Instead, they’d allow laws that “support the right of parents to deal with the morals of their children as they see fit”. Laws that take away parental control are also impermissible.

“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166.

In another decision, they regard & defend parental responsibility & discretion in leaving access open to children.

The Fabulous Associates […]. Id. at 788. The court noted that “[i]n this respect, the decision a parent must make is comparable to whether to keep sexually explicit books on the shelf or subscribe to adult magazines. No constitutional principle is implicated. The responsibility for making such choices is where our society has traditionally placed it — on the shoulders of the parent.”

So, according to them, presenting such content to children ought to be left up to their parents, and laws shouldn’t infringe on their right to do that.

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! 🫡

Mangosteen? The rind hardens like leather & makes a nice container/ornament.

Maybe diospyros virginiana?

A lot of parents sadly lack any kinds of skills to use those tools nor even know that they exist.

As far as laws with potential to repress freedom of expression go, wouldn’t public government programs or campaigns to train & educate parents be a less compromising way to meet such needs without raising issues of liberty, privacy, coercion?

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.

I wouldn’t be so confident without a legal argument to support your opinion.

While I agree, I don’t think the language “every operating system provider has to create” means it’s installed if you don’t want it. Parental control software exists for Linux, it’s available from the package manager, and we can opt out of installing it.

I doubt “every operating system” is meant literally. Embedded OSs for specialized hardware (eg, routers, satellites, rockets, missiles, drones, calculators, industrial lasers) aren’t typically meant for children to browse the web. If TempleOS supported networking, it might be in trouble. Viable legislation would probably be restricted to OSs designed to allow children to access content over the internet.

The main thrust of the suggestion is to prefer parental controls over age verification. Better ways to ensure availability of parental controls (like government services to provide the software free) fit that broad idea.

I can make its logic gates do anything I want, as long as it’s not sending CP or malware over the Internet.

That stipulation doesn’t need to be stated. It can be programmed to do anything, and that’s fine. Laws already exist for illegal activity. Anyone who’d fuss the absence of that stipulation lacks credibility.

Cool: agreed. Your objection was ambiguous.

If we had to choose, though, I’d consider the professor’s suggestion preferable to age verification. While I disagree with mandating it, it’d pretty much do nothing, because it’s already reality: most mainstream OSs include parental controls. The “criteria” would establish standards for parental controls, which isn’t altogether a bad idea. A better idea would be to promote a standard & replace mandates with public services to provide parental control technologies free & to educate parents.

In the late 90s, when US Congress attempted to regulate access of adult content to minors, those laws commissioned studies that drew similar conclusions even then. The studies & federal courts concluded that to meet the government’s compelling interest in “protecting minors from harmful content”, there were more narrowly tailored alternatives to criminalization & age verification that are less restrictive to fundamental rights & are at least as effective:

• client-side filters to block content from the receiving end
• government programs to train parents & provide them resources to “protect” their children from “harmful content”
• public education campaigns.

They pointed out while client-side filters may have false positives & negatives

• they can be monitored & corrected
• they’re a more complete solution that can restrict all internet protocols (not just web) from any geographic source (not only in legal jurisdiction) with content of any type (including dynamic such as live chat)
• they allow restriction of other kinds of content (eg, violence, hate speech)
• they can vary restrictions per child (eg, age-appropriateness)
• they let parents disable them
• they don’t obstruct access by adults.

Criminalizing access to adult content at the source obstructs everyone’s access & burdens them with loss of privacy & with security risk.

Despite their age, those studies’ findings remain relevant.

• COPA Commission

  In October 1998 Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act and established the Commission on Online Child Protection to study methods to help reduce access by minors to certain sexually explicit material, defined in the statute as harmful to minors. Congress directed the Commission to evaluate the accessibility, cost, and effectiveness of protective technologies and methods, as well as their possible effects on privacy, First Amendment values and law enforcement. This report responds to the Congressional request.

• National Research Council

  In November 1998, the U.S. Congress mandated a study by the National Research Council (NRC) to address pornography on the Internet (Box P.1).

Education, supervision, & parental controls/filters seem a more compelling solution. However, bring that up in regard to legislation to age-restrict social media & the tune at lemmy dramatically changes: seems inconsistent.