Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/08/elon-musk-files-really-strong-1st-amendment-challenge-to-californias-terrible-social-media-transparency-law/

"However, there was another bill we wrote about that got a bit less attention: AB 587 which was pitched as a “transparency” bill."

"But it’s a bad law. It limits the ability of companies to respond and adjust tactics against bad actors in real time. It assumes (incorrectly) that content moderation is a static thing. It also requires that companies have policies in place to deal with 1st Amendment protected content, even though the government can’t legislate that."

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/08/two-of-the-absolute-worst-senators-on-tech-policy-team-up-to-put-together-terrible-ideas-for-ai-regulations/

"But history has shown time and time again that in highly dynamic and emerging areas of innovation, no one is particularly good at accurately weighing the risks and benefits, and being overly proscriptive about that technology, often means trying to prevent a harm that is not really at risk, while limiting many of the benefits."

https://reason.com/2023/09/08/dea-finally-relaxes-prescription-transfer-rules/

"Those who take drugs on the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) list of controlled substances can now have their prescriptions transferred to another pharmacy.

The revised rule, which was announced last week, went into effect on August 28. Before, any prescriptions for Schedule II–V drugs could only be filled at the pharmacy location where it was sent. The rule applies only to electronic prescriptions, and prescriptions for drugs not on the controlled substance list remain free to be transferred."

"The revision scraps the need to involve your prescribing physician, but that doesn't mean the process is streamlined: Even now, according to the DEA's announcement, "a prescription can only be transferred once between pharmacies." It further "must remain in its electronic form; may not be altered in any way; and the transfer must be communicated directly between two licensed pharmacists." And finally, "any authorized refills transfer with the original prescription, which means the entire prescription will be filled at the same pharmacy.""

"As The New York Times reported last month, "Parents and caregivers across the country are spending hours each month hunting down pharmacies with A.D.H.D. medication in stock and asking their doctors to either transfer or rewrite prescriptions, a process many equate to having a second job.""

"The rule was intended to prevent "pharmacy shopping," or when a patient fills a single prescription at multiple pharmacies in order to get more pills than prescribed."

I mean... David's colleague used to go on about something 3% - 5% of the population being child abusers (which presumably led to people accusing him of secretly being one, ouch).

He probably did this to try to get people to "take crime seriously". This kind of tactic is very patronizing, when you're trying to protect civil rights (a common one being privacy).

That particular number probably comes from surveys with tortured proxy variables, ambiguous questions, poor / inconsistent definitions, and selection bias (people with certain traits being more prominent than in the general population). Also, I've seen data, which if you were to interpret the same way, would produce 20%+, which is obviously nonsense.

Another possibility is that someone counts every "report" on the Internet as a "person". This is also a dodgy assumption.

Or it might rely heavily on participants from forensic / clinical / clinical adjacent settings? Let's suppose that a clinical setting already does research, participating in yet another study might be easier, in that case. I'm leaning more with the other two though.

https://www.nandgame.com/ Here's a little game where you can play with things like logic gates to build a little computer of sorts.

I'm not making a particular argument for, or against it (although, I'm not a fan of censorship), but it's getting annoying the E.U. keeps going full "do this!" "no this!".

It is... Another great case study in how governments trying to get involved in social media governance just doesn't work.

By the way, a committee in the E.U. doesn't want large social media platforms to moderate posts by news sites.

You have too much misinformation on your platform!

Why are you moderating these sources of misinformation?!

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/ Disturbing surveillance from cars.