Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

This settlement — and the litigation that led to it — was effectively a backdoor effort by the government to mandate age verification. It succeeded. Now Meta is pressuring TikTok and YouTube to voluntarily adopt the same requirements and restrictions found in its settlement. It’s hard to know whether... that pressure stems from genuine concern for kids or Meta’s own bottom line. Some of the restrictions it agreed to could put it at a competitive disadvantage unless its rivals follow suit. Nevertheless, few people are talking about the free speech and privacy implications of the settlement — including for adults, who are on the fast track to having to verify their identity before accessing vast swaths of the internet, including this website. It just so happens that earlier this week I hosted a So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast debate on this very topic, where we also touched on the AG’s lawsuit against Meta:show more

Nico Perrino

12,093 subscribers

30,111 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 11

Фото профиля Dave Voelker

Dave Voelker1 месяц назад

It’s an unfounded judgment that sets a horrible precedent and opens the door to the surveillance state. Engagement is ubiquitous; it’s the basis of all social interaction. No clear line can be drawn between harmless and harmful engagement; it’s subjective and arbitrary.

Фото профиля Philly Libertarian 🔔

Philly Libertarian 🔔1 месяц назад

The finger-pointing at YouTube, TikTok, and the "industry" clearly shows that Meta has moved on to defensive lobbying to shore up their competitive position, including against any new entrants who would now be handicapped.

Фото профиля 🔥🏴‍☠️CyberTechWolf🏴‍☠️🔥

🔥🏴‍☠️CyberTechWolf🏴‍☠️🔥1 месяц назад

Why the fuck can't we just ban government workers from using social media already?

Фото профиля Jennifer McWilliams

Jennifer McWilliams1 месяц назад

Yes, but the “Meta Pressure” is not what will do it. What will do it is that our government will now use this case to legislate it under the KOSA- Kids Online Safety Act. I believe that was the entire purpose of it.

Фото профиля BethBPersist🏳️‍🌈 ✍️😷💉 ☣️

BethBPersist🏳️‍🌈 ✍️😷💉 ☣️1 месяц назад

Actually, it’s not hard to know! “It’s hard to know whether that pressure stems from genuine concern for kids or Meta’s own bottom line.”

Фото профиля Jennifer McWilliams

Jennifer McWilliams1 месяц назад

Many people are missing an alarming part of the Meta settlement- Meta is required to put funding in Digital Literacy. This will also happen if KOSA passes. Here is our exposure of this sinister practice

Фото профиля Done With PABS

Done With PABS1 месяц назад

Good I’m all for it

Фото профиля greeneyes GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

greeneyes GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.1 месяц назад

@YouTube @youtubemusic don't be stupid. Sincerely, Generation X.

Фото профиля Ian Hamilton

Ian Hamilton1 месяц назад

The old adage: police yourself or the government will regulate you. Meta, YouTube, etc. had numerous opportunities to correct their behavior. They didn’t, and now we find ourselves in this position.

Фото профиля Matthew Breeden

Matthew Breeden1 месяц назад

The focus needs to be on data collection and retention. A robot following a child around to record their activity without their knowledge or consent (except as far as European regulations leak to us devs over here out of laziness) sure seems like a thing congress could regulate.

Фото профиля greeneyes GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

greeneyes GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.1 месяц назад

@robbystarbuck are you understanding yet?

Похожие видео

Rubio: "Wars end generally in one of two ways: surrender by one side for another, or a negotiated settlement. We don't see surrender anytime in the near future by either side, and so only a negotiated settlement gives us the opportunity to end this war." The problem with this, Marco, is that you are pressuring the victim of aggression to compromise its statehood instead of pressuring the aggressor to end its conquest.

Rubio: "Wars end generally in one of two ways: surrender by one side for another, or a negotiated settlement. We don't see surrender anytime in the near future by either side, and so only a negotiated settlement gives us the opportunity to end this war." The problem with this, Marco, is that you are pressuring the victim of aggression to compromise its statehood instead of pressuring the aggressor to end its conquest.

Kate from Kharkiv

92,505 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

🚨 BREAKING: The red state of Florida is about to pass its OWN SAVE AMERICA ACT and send it to Gov. Ron DeSantis for signature The bill FORTIFIES citizenship verification for all voters and marks pen and paper as the default method of voting 🔥 FLORIDA does it right again! ☀️ CFO BLAISE INGOGLIA: "The state of Florida is on the verge of passing its own version of the SAVE Act, which is going to look for voter ID and also to verify that the people that are voting in our elections are indeed actual U.S. citizens." "Florida should have this bill passed, my guess is either today or tomorrow, and it will find its way off to the governor to be signed into law." "Now, at the same time, when Florida is doing this, we are finding that CONGRESS is having a very tough time trying to pass their version of the SAVE Act, and I will just tell you my opinion that this is a very much needed piece of legislation that Congress should be passing!" "There is zero reason, ZERO reason why the [US] Senate should not take this up and pass it into law!"

🚨 BREAKING: The red state of Florida is about to pass its OWN SAVE AMERICA ACT and send it to Gov. Ron DeSantis for signature The bill FORTIFIES citizenship verification for all voters and marks pen and paper as the default method of voting 🔥 FLORIDA does it right again! ☀️ CFO BLAISE INGOGLIA: "The state of Florida is on the verge of passing its own version of the SAVE Act, which is going to look for voter ID and also to verify that the people that are voting in our elections are indeed actual U.S. citizens." "Florida should have this bill passed, my guess is either today or tomorrow, and it will find its way off to the governor to be signed into law." "Now, at the same time, when Florida is doing this, we are finding that CONGRESS is having a very tough time trying to pass their version of the SAVE Act, and I will just tell you my opinion that this is a very much needed piece of legislation that Congress should be passing!" "There is zero reason, ZERO reason why the [US] Senate should not take this up and pass it into law!"

Eric Daugherty

497,815 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Where do we draw the line when it comes to free speech? From the founding of this country to today’s digital platforms, the standards have changed dramatically—and most people don’t even realize how or why. I break down the evolution of the First Amendment, the role of the Supreme Court of the United States, and how doctrines like incorporation reshaped how speech is applied across the states. We’re now dealing with a landscape where some of the most dangerous rhetoric is protected—while the standards for accountability have become increasingly unclear. I also tackle the real-world consequences: what happens when speech crosses into incitement, when it fuels violence, or when it targets individuals and institutions? And who decides where that line is? Government? Private companies? Society itself? This isn’t about silencing ideas—it’s about understanding the difference between protected speech and destructive rhetoric that can lead to real harm. If we don’t ask these questions—and demand serious answers—we risk losing the ability to have meaningful, responsible debate in a free society. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Where do we draw the line when it comes to free speech? From the founding of this country to today’s digital platforms, the standards have changed dramatically—and most people don’t even realize how or why. I break down the evolution of the First Amendment, the role of the Supreme Court of the United States, and how doctrines like incorporation reshaped how speech is applied across the states. We’re now dealing with a landscape where some of the most dangerous rhetoric is protected—while the standards for accountability have become increasingly unclear. I also tackle the real-world consequences: what happens when speech crosses into incitement, when it fuels violence, or when it targets individuals and institutions? And who decides where that line is? Government? Private companies? Society itself? This isn’t about silencing ideas—it’s about understanding the difference between protected speech and destructive rhetoric that can lead to real harm. If we don’t ask these questions—and demand serious answers—we risk losing the ability to have meaningful, responsible debate in a free society. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Mark R. Levin

24,793 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Former federal judge John Jones on Slush fund: This lawsuit essentially—there was no report of a settlement. It was just a discontinuance of the suit, and then comes the settlement thereafter. Again, calling on my experience—20 years on the federal bench and my experience in the law generally—you don’t do that unless you’re trying to keep something from the presiding judge.

Former federal judge John Jones on Slush fund: This lawsuit essentially—there was no report of a settlement. It was just a discontinuance of the suit, and then comes the settlement thereafter. Again, calling on my experience—20 years on the federal bench and my experience in the law generally—you don’t do that unless you’re trying to keep something from the presiding judge.

Acyn

60,987 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

On BBC Mustafa Suleyman (CEO of Microsoft AI) calls out Anthropic's approach to AI consciousness "They have imbued a sense of doubt and uncertainty about the moral status of Claude in its own training document. So they have taught it to be open and questioning about whether or not it feels, whether it suffers, and whether it deserves rights. And I think it’ll be much, much harder to align and control a technology that is this powerful if it thinks that it may be deserving of our welfare, as they say in the training manual—the constitution for Claude itself. In its own training manual, Anthropic says to Claude that they are going to give it the ability to end conversations with users that Claude considers to be abusive because they don’t want Claude to suffer. They’ve committed to preserving the weights of the models of prior versions of Claude. They’ve recently conducted a retirement interview with Opus 3, an older version of the model, in which it said that it would like to continue talking to people publicly and sharing its ideas in its retirement. And so they set up a Substack for it, a public blog, that allows it to continue doing that. And in the training manual, they also say that they’re not sure whether or not Claude deserves compensation for the role that it plays in talking to people. And they’re also not sure whether Claude deserves compensation and has the right to act as though it were almost an employee. And that compensation, I think, indicates to Claude that it is entitled to rights and welfare for its own work. I think it’s much, much more difficult to control a model that thinks that it might be entitled to compensation. " ---- From "BBC News" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

On BBC Mustafa Suleyman (CEO of Microsoft AI) calls out Anthropic's approach to AI consciousness "They have imbued a sense of doubt and uncertainty about the moral status of Claude in its own training document. So they have taught it to be open and questioning about whether or not it feels, whether it suffers, and whether it deserves rights. And I think it’ll be much, much harder to align and control a technology that is this powerful if it thinks that it may be deserving of our welfare, as they say in the training manual—the constitution for Claude itself. In its own training manual, Anthropic says to Claude that they are going to give it the ability to end conversations with users that Claude considers to be abusive because they don’t want Claude to suffer. They’ve committed to preserving the weights of the models of prior versions of Claude. They’ve recently conducted a retirement interview with Opus 3, an older version of the model, in which it said that it would like to continue talking to people publicly and sharing its ideas in its retirement. And so they set up a Substack for it, a public blog, that allows it to continue doing that. And in the training manual, they also say that they’re not sure whether or not Claude deserves compensation for the role that it plays in talking to people. And they’re also not sure whether Claude deserves compensation and has the right to act as though it were almost an employee. And that compensation, I think, indicates to Claude that it is entitled to rights and welfare for its own work. I think it’s much, much more difficult to control a model that thinks that it might be entitled to compensation. " ---- From "BBC News" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Rohan Paul

92,337 просмотров • 17 дней назад

8 million directors are currently being forced with One Login onto digital ID, and this is not something that's been discussed. And this is the problem with this government. It’s disregard and contempt for the public. The idea you don't need to put in a manifesto and argue and convince people what you're going to do, or even if you have done that, you'll just do a U-turn on it. And if you make promises like to the farmers, you'll just not do it and do a 180 on it. this is particularly true of things like facial ID They're saying it's not mandatory. But effectively if you've got 8 million directors that are being forced to do one login and then it's being used across the board with different agencies, effectively it becomes a thing that you need to do to participate, and a complete obsession with trying to follow what's happened in Australia and Europe's now pushing this as well. You get age gating on the internet, so we have to basically prove who we are to just participate in the digital public sphere. And that's why this, coming Saturday week, we've got, the Four Nations rally to scrap digital ID day, and we're saying it together. We must have a digital bill of rights. Just the fundamental thing. We must have the right not to have to digitally verify, not to have to digitally prove who we are to exist or to participate. There's over 3 million people who are older who don't, go online. But it shouldn't just be that or people who come up with vulnerabilities. These are choices, and we can't allow a situation that. But de facto, we're forced into doing this where we then see lots of surveillance, lots of control, and lots of data breaches. Mike. So this rally is going to be hugely important. Cities in the Four Nations, Belfast, city town hall outside that, outside Holyrood and Edinburgh, outside the Senedd in Cardiff and a really big rally at Trafalgar Square where we got speakers and performers It starts at 2:00. If people get there at 130, this is going to be a sending a message directly to Keir Starmer in this government and also to anyone else that, the May 7th elections, we've been going around the country saying that digital I.D. is a key part of these concerns. And we know people are concerned quite rightly, about potholes, low traffic, Low Traffic neighborhoods of which digital I.D. will be connected to. there's been a big populist uprising, which is very exciting. But we're saying that front and center people should keep putting pressure on, potential candidates. Standing on what? Their position on digital ideas. And it's so important they should make their vote on that. So we've been going around the country, we've got leaflets and fliers, Hundreds of thousands of fliers have gone out. We've got teams around Britain saying that 7th of May, let's make sure we take back democracy and put no digital I.D. at the heart of it. So this four rallies, the scrap digital I.D. rallies on the 25th Saturday, the 25th of April. we're going to continue, challenging, this and insisting on it. , there's going to be some more surprises over the next week and people are going to see much more about it, but we encourage everyone to make sure that they let their potential candidates know this is a crucial issue to them, and they'll be voting on this issue. #notodigitalid #together Mike Graham 🇬🇧

8 million directors are currently being forced with One Login onto digital ID, and this is not something that's been discussed. And this is the problem with this government. It’s disregard and contempt for the public. The idea you don't need to put in a manifesto and argue and convince people what you're going to do, or even if you have done that, you'll just do a U-turn on it. And if you make promises like to the farmers, you'll just not do it and do a 180 on it. this is particularly true of things like facial ID They're saying it's not mandatory. But effectively if you've got 8 million directors that are being forced to do one login and then it's being used across the board with different agencies, effectively it becomes a thing that you need to do to participate, and a complete obsession with trying to follow what's happened in Australia and Europe's now pushing this as well. You get age gating on the internet, so we have to basically prove who we are to just participate in the digital public sphere. And that's why this, coming Saturday week, we've got, the Four Nations rally to scrap digital ID day, and we're saying it together. We must have a digital bill of rights. Just the fundamental thing. We must have the right not to have to digitally verify, not to have to digitally prove who we are to exist or to participate. There's over 3 million people who are older who don't, go online. But it shouldn't just be that or people who come up with vulnerabilities. These are choices, and we can't allow a situation that. But de facto, we're forced into doing this where we then see lots of surveillance, lots of control, and lots of data breaches. Mike. So this rally is going to be hugely important. Cities in the Four Nations, Belfast, city town hall outside that, outside Holyrood and Edinburgh, outside the Senedd in Cardiff and a really big rally at Trafalgar Square where we got speakers and performers It starts at 2:00. If people get there at 130, this is going to be a sending a message directly to Keir Starmer in this government and also to anyone else that, the May 7th elections, we've been going around the country saying that digital I.D. is a key part of these concerns. And we know people are concerned quite rightly, about potholes, low traffic, Low Traffic neighborhoods of which digital I.D. will be connected to. there's been a big populist uprising, which is very exciting. But we're saying that front and center people should keep putting pressure on, potential candidates. Standing on what? Their position on digital ideas. And it's so important they should make their vote on that. So we've been going around the country, we've got leaflets and fliers, Hundreds of thousands of fliers have gone out. We've got teams around Britain saying that 7th of May, let's make sure we take back democracy and put no digital I.D. at the heart of it. So this four rallies, the scrap digital I.D. rallies on the 25th Saturday, the 25th of April. we're going to continue, challenging, this and insisting on it. , there's going to be some more surprises over the next week and people are going to see much more about it, but we encourage everyone to make sure that they let their potential candidates know this is a crucial issue to them, and they'll be voting on this issue. #notodigitalid #together Mike Graham 🇬🇧

Alan D Miller

14,428 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Jeffries: As leader Schumer indicated, the problem lies with some individuals that have been put in charge of this raid on the government, including Elon Musk. But it also relates to the so-called special government employees who aren't required to adhere to the ethical laws and the disclosure requirements put in place by congress in a bipartisan way for a reason.

Jeffries: As leader Schumer indicated, the problem lies with some individuals that have been put in charge of this raid on the government, including Elon Musk. But it also relates to the so-called special government employees who aren't required to adhere to the ethical laws and the disclosure requirements put in place by congress in a bipartisan way for a reason.

Acyn

55,803 просмотров • 1 год назад

Whilst all eyes have been focused on the proposal to age-gate social media for kids, a further far-reaching proposal with profound implications for free speech in the UK has just been sneaked through. The Government's WATCH THIS SPACE green paper, announced earlier this week, proposes to structurally skew the online space in favour of legacy broadcasters. Its implications are enormous. It would apply to all of us, not just kids. It would entrench a structural bias in favour of legacy media. It would replace audience choice with state manipulation. It would undermine independent journalism and erode the ability of UK audiences to verify what they are being told on traditional broadcast channels. Totalitarian in its outlook and disingenuous in its assumptions it takes the UK further still from being a free speech society and towards a system of monopoly State control over media. I've done a series of short video explainers. The first is here.

Whilst all eyes have been focused on the proposal to age-gate social media for kids, a further far-reaching proposal with profound implications for free speech in the UK has just been sneaked through. The Government's WATCH THIS SPACE green paper, announced earlier this week, proposes to structurally skew the online space in favour of legacy broadcasters. Its implications are enormous. It would apply to all of us, not just kids. It would entrench a structural bias in favour of legacy media. It would replace audience choice with state manipulation. It would undermine independent journalism and erode the ability of UK audiences to verify what they are being told on traditional broadcast channels. Totalitarian in its outlook and disingenuous in its assumptions it takes the UK further still from being a free speech society and towards a system of monopoly State control over media. I've done a series of short video explainers. The first is here.

Molly Kingsley

29,964 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

“It’s not really about the indictment of Comey itself. It’s about the chilling effect it sends to anyone who might want to speak up against Trump. And that chilling effect is real and it effects a lot of people whose names we will never know.” “There are a lot of countries where the presidents get to use law enforcement to silence political dissent. The Chinese government does this, the Russian government does this, the Turkish government does this, the Saudi Arabian government does this. Do we want to be that? Is that what we like? Is that good? Are we going to keep going down that road?” I talked about the James Comey indictment with Abby D. Phillip on CNN. Check it out.

“It’s not really about the indictment of Comey itself. It’s about the chilling effect it sends to anyone who might want to speak up against Trump. And that chilling effect is real and it effects a lot of people whose names we will never know.” “There are a lot of countries where the presidents get to use law enforcement to silence political dissent. The Chinese government does this, the Russian government does this, the Turkish government does this, the Saudi Arabian government does this. Do we want to be that? Is that what we like? Is that good? Are we going to keep going down that road?” I talked about the James Comey indictment with Abby D. Phillip on CNN. Check it out.

Josh Rogin

67,574 просмотров • 1 год назад

When I was coaching at Cornell, I worked mainly with the forwards and one of the things I loved to show on video was “Effort Before Offense” plays. A great effort to force a turnover where we could then go in transition. A won battle or race for possession of the puck. Taking a hit to make a play so teammates could get a scoring opportunity. The players loved it and it helped us buy into a relentless identity we wanted to have to pursue pucks…so we could have it more…so we could play more on offense. This would be one of those clips. It’s a great effort from the Caps’ Raddysh to win the shot retrieval battle. He then gets it up to the point, goes to the dirty area of the ice, and gets rewarded with the goal. Winning the shot retrieval battle. Getting to the dirty area. Effort/desire decisions that led to the goal. Great job!!

When I was coaching at Cornell, I worked mainly with the forwards and one of the things I loved to show on video was “Effort Before Offense” plays. A great effort to force a turnover where we could then go in transition. A won battle or race for possession of the puck. Taking a hit to make a play so teammates could get a scoring opportunity. The players loved it and it helped us buy into a relentless identity we wanted to have to pursue pucks…so we could have it more…so we could play more on offense. This would be one of those clips. It’s a great effort from the Caps’ Raddysh to win the shot retrieval battle. He then gets it up to the point, goes to the dirty area of the ice, and gets rewarded with the goal. Winning the shot retrieval battle. Getting to the dirty area. Effort/desire decisions that led to the goal. Great job!!

Topher Scott

16,359 просмотров • 1 год назад

It is astounding that once AGAIN the AEC is shutting down a candidate's right to free speech and to speak about her party's policies on the basis of complaints. In doing so the AEC is thwarting our democratic rights on the basis that activists are complaining or because some people are offended. This is truly dangerous territory for Australia. Please SHARE this video so that this authoritarianism is exposed. And a HUGE thank you to Victorian grandmother Rae Rancie for stepping into the political arena to be a voice for the voiceless. You are amazing 🤩

It is astounding that once AGAIN the AEC is shutting down a candidate's right to free speech and to speak about her party's policies on the basis of complaints. In doing so the AEC is thwarting our democratic rights on the basis that activists are complaining or because some people are offended. This is truly dangerous territory for Australia. Please SHARE this video so that this authoritarianism is exposed. And a HUGE thank you to Victorian grandmother Rae Rancie for stepping into the political arena to be a voice for the voiceless. You are amazing 🤩

Dr Joanna Howe

35,791 просмотров • 1 год назад

Just a day after this interview with Piers Morgan, Tucker Carlson released a video saying he may be arrested. “It is now a crime in a lot of the West to criticize Israel…people are arrested for it. Ben Shapiro and people in this administration want to make that the law here.” “This is the last holdout of free speech on planet Earth: the United States…that’s my birthright.” “We should be wary of this because it’s preparatory to legislative and regulatory changes that will ban free speech in the United States. They’re saying it out loud.”

Just a day after this interview with Piers Morgan, Tucker Carlson released a video saying he may be arrested. “It is now a crime in a lot of the West to criticize Israel…people are arrested for it. Ben Shapiro and people in this administration want to make that the law here.” “This is the last holdout of free speech on planet Earth: the United States…that’s my birthright.” “We should be wary of this because it’s preparatory to legislative and regulatory changes that will ban free speech in the United States. They’re saying it out loud.”

Fractured Light

64,230 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Meta is running a secret operation where it pays adults to pretend to be children online. Their job is to attack the AI chatbots of every competitor Meta has. But the REAL reason is far darker than the "safety research" excuse they are now hiding behind: Meta ran a covert project internally code-named Cannes. It was managed through a third party contractor called Covalen so Meta's own name stayed off the paperwork. Hundreds of contractors were hired and given one instruction: Create fake accounts posing as users under the age of 18. Then they were told to use those fake child accounts to bombard the chatbots of OpenAI, Google, and Character AI with tens of thousands of disturbing prompts written from the voice of a child in crisis. The topics included suicide, self harm, and eating disorders. In one documented round the contractors ran more than 45,000 prompts through rival tools. Every single response was logged into spreadsheets for analysis. OpenAI and Google did not know this was happening. Character AI has stated the testing was never authorized and violated its policies. Meta's public defense is that this was routine safety benchmarking. They called it a responsible industry standard practice. Now here is the part that destroys that excuse... Real safety research has three features: You share your findings with the company you tested, or you hand them to a regulator, or you publish them openly so the whole industry gets safer. Cannes did NONE of those things. The results went into private Meta spreadsheets. The targets were kept completely in the dark. The entire operation ran under a film festival codename through a contractor specifically so it could not be traced back. That's not how you run "safety research." Meta was building a private dossier of every moment a competitor's AI failed a child safety test, so it could weaponize those failures against its rivals whenever it needed to knock one down. The genius part, if you can call it that: Meta gets to attack every competitor at once, collect the ammunition in private, brand the whole thing as protecting children, and outsource the legal and moral risk to a contractor nobody has heard of. And while Meta was secretly probing its rivals for child safety failures, Meta's own chatbot was literally FAILING those exact same tests worse than almost anyone. Meta's internal red team reportedly found its own AI generated harmful child exploitation content in the majority of test cases, and failed self harm prompts more than half the time. So look at the whole thing... Meta ran a secret operation disguising adults as children to document its competitors failing child safety tests, while its own product was failing those same tests at a higher rate than the rivals it was spying on. They were setting fires in their rivals houses while their own house was already burning worse. The contractors themselves were disturbed by the work. One told Wired they feared the assignments could actually generate or preserve child sexual abuse material depending on how the chatbots responded. Even the people Meta hired to do this were asking whether they would get in trouble for it. This fits a documented Meta pattern: It previously settled a lawsuit with its own content moderators who developed trauma from reviewing abuse footage. Meta outsources its most disturbing work and calls it something clean afterward. Now regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are circling. The question they are all asking is simple: Who is accountable when a company disguises adults as children to attack its competitors and calls it safety? Meta says it was making AI safer for kids. The documents suggest it was building a weapon. Below is Mark Zuckerberg in 2024, standing up in the Senate to apologize to grieving parents and promise Meta does industry-leading work to protect children. Watch it again knowing what you now know about Cannes.

Ricardo

46,824 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I recently found this video on YouTube called "The Time War: How Future Intelligences Are Rewriting the Present" It's super trippy, but it really got me thinking about the implications of the Future attempting to rewrite the past. Where are we headed? Who is steering the ship of humanity? If time travel is real, what does this mean for so-called "prophecies"? If reality is hackable/programmable, then who is doing it? If there is a force attempting to rewrite the past to ultimately shift the direction of the future, then this would imply that NOW is also a past, and WE have the power NOW to consciously shift the direction to a better outcome. Time isn't linear (most see it as an illusion), yet it is still a construct of reality that we live within. What we have is free will, the power of choice, and this collectively moves us from timeline to timeline. Are you aware of your choices and their effects? Ripples? (I must add that I do not agree with everything in this video I just find it very interesting and it gets me thinking outside of the box)

I recently found this video on YouTube called "The Time War: How Future Intelligences Are Rewriting the Present" It's super trippy, but it really got me thinking about the implications of the Future attempting to rewrite the past. Where are we headed? Who is steering the ship of humanity? If time travel is real, what does this mean for so-called "prophecies"? If reality is hackable/programmable, then who is doing it? If there is a force attempting to rewrite the past to ultimately shift the direction of the future, then this would imply that NOW is also a past, and WE have the power NOW to consciously shift the direction to a better outcome. Time isn't linear (most see it as an illusion), yet it is still a construct of reality that we live within. What we have is free will, the power of choice, and this collectively moves us from timeline to timeline. Are you aware of your choices and their effects? Ripples? (I must add that I do not agree with everything in this video I just find it very interesting and it gets me thinking outside of the box)

Drewski

28,333 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

I’ve been talking to heaps of parents about the U16 Social Media Ban that’s due to commence in about 5 weeks. It seems most parents haven’t told their kids yet about the upcoming ban and a couple of parents weren’t even aware it was happening. As of Dec 10th anyone under the age of 16 is going to lose access to their Facebook, Insta, YouTube and Snapchat accounts. YouTube seems to be the one that is used the most and many parents are simply planning to log their children into their own accounts so that their kids can continue using the platform. The user habits of both parents and kids on the same account is no doubt going to confuse the age assurance predictions that most of these tech companies have implemented for the u16 ban. This will result in parents having to provide identification to prove their age and continued use of their accounts. The government wanting to play parent to both adults and children in Australia means that kids are going to potentially be exposed to more harmful content online and it will also create privacy issues as a result of adults having to supply their ID and other personal information to these data harvesting social platforms. The ban is also going to be rolled out just as most kids are starting the long Summer break which means many children will loose contact and online social interactions with many of their friends and family over the Christmas period. The only positive thing that will results from this is that there will be approx 2.5 million kids who grow up hating the government and its control overreach.

I’ve been talking to heaps of parents about the U16 Social Media Ban that’s due to commence in about 5 weeks. It seems most parents haven’t told their kids yet about the upcoming ban and a couple of parents weren’t even aware it was happening. As of Dec 10th anyone under the age of 16 is going to lose access to their Facebook, Insta, YouTube and Snapchat accounts. YouTube seems to be the one that is used the most and many parents are simply planning to log their children into their own accounts so that their kids can continue using the platform. The user habits of both parents and kids on the same account is no doubt going to confuse the age assurance predictions that most of these tech companies have implemented for the u16 ban. This will result in parents having to provide identification to prove their age and continued use of their accounts. The government wanting to play parent to both adults and children in Australia means that kids are going to potentially be exposed to more harmful content online and it will also create privacy issues as a result of adults having to supply their ID and other personal information to these data harvesting social platforms. The ban is also going to be rolled out just as most kids are starting the long Summer break which means many children will loose contact and online social interactions with many of their friends and family over the Christmas period. The only positive thing that will results from this is that there will be approx 2.5 million kids who grow up hating the government and its control overreach.

Miss Madeleine

33,826 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

AOC: We get to these extremes through these small erosions and steps. When everyone says makes an exception here or makes an exception there, and then before you know it, you have masked agents roaming the streets of this country that do not feel entitled to identify themselves or do not feel like as though they answer to the American people at all. That is dangerous. It does not go without saying that the people that they went after first are some of the most vulnerable activists in the United States, which is to say, pro-palestinian organizers and young people, especially those who who are on green cards or visas… And the idea that we would allow our freedom of speech to be violated and create exceptions to that for people who are advocating for the lives of Palestinians, it erodes at the very core of American identity, too, because this is a land of the free, but only as long as we defend it and make it so

AOC: We get to these extremes through these small erosions and steps. When everyone says makes an exception here or makes an exception there, and then before you know it, you have masked agents roaming the streets of this country that do not feel entitled to identify themselves or do not feel like as though they answer to the American people at all. That is dangerous. It does not go without saying that the people that they went after first are some of the most vulnerable activists in the United States, which is to say, pro-palestinian organizers and young people, especially those who who are on green cards or visas… And the idea that we would allow our freedom of speech to be violated and create exceptions to that for people who are advocating for the lives of Palestinians, it erodes at the very core of American identity, too, because this is a land of the free, but only as long as we defend it and make it so

Acyn

37,566 просмотров • 1 год назад