Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://reason.com/2024/07/15/ftc-opens-a-backdoor-route-to-age-verification-on-social-media/
"They are based in part on a "novel theory," Ferguson said in a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. This theory says NGL violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act "by marketing an anonymous messaging app to children and teenagers despite knowing that anonymous messaging apps are harmful to these groups.""

What are your thoughts on this case? #privacy

People keep circling back to talking about "copyright" in discussions about "AI" (as if over-zealous copyright enforcement hasn't been a hindrance to the web).

"uncensored chat bot"

Terms of Service: Absolutely no lewd content!

#AI

If not that particular sentence, they market privacy a lot.

In any case, it's pretty sleazy for someone to go on and on and on about how they value privacy, then to go out of their way to collect the data of users like that.

https://blog.privacyguides.org/2024/07/14/mozilla-disappoints-us-yet-again-2/
Mozilla (which receives a hefty amount of money from Google) is under fire for making it easier for advertisers to track users of their browser.

""No shady privacy policies or back doors for advertisers" proclaims the Firefox homepage"
Doesn't deceiving customers like this violate the FTC Act? #privacy #Mozilla

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2024/07/15/music/hatsune-miku-vocaloid-shift/ Oh, yes, Hatsune Miku has been around a very long time.

If you know of anyone who likes AI art, I'd be curious to know what their thoughts on it are.

It's silly trying to judge figures from hundreds of years ago by modern standards.

https://lemmy.ml/post/17952346 Interesting to see a case involving the principles around "keep up".

There is quite a bit of chatter over whether they're going to reinstate Trump's account, or not, but a lot of decisions do not involve Trump's account.

I'll add that their own "Oversight Board" asked them to do so.

If Facebook does put value on freedom of expression though, then maybe they should re-assess their anti-nudity stance.

From what I've seen, he actually cares less about freedom of expression than the average progressive.

Now, different people might draw different lines, but it's hard for me to call someone who only has an interest in defending speech he personally supports the "fiercest defender of free speech".

It's not simply this example. There have been quite a few examples of this.

This guy talks about how much he loves free speech but anytime a free speech issue comes up, he errs on the side of censorship (when the speech is not "obviously good").

Facebook has the unenviable task of figuring out what to do with this account. Any decision will be difficult, and any will likely be criticized.

They're trying to draw a line of enabling political speech, while tackling content which they find troublesome. It is also likely they want some standard they can point to when dealing with accounts, rather than conjuring up decisions on the spot.

To be clear, that is not really what Facebook is saying here.

"But that does not mean there are no limits to what people can say on our platform. When there is a clear risk of real world harm — a deliberately high bar for Meta to intervene in public discourse — we act."

They are still saying they will act, if they deem that the situation demands it.

"In light of his violations, he now also faces heightened penalties for repeat offenses"

"The Board upheld the decision but criticized the open-ended nature of the suspension and the lack of clear criteria for when and whether suspended accounts will be restored"

The biggest issue the Board has is the lack of due process and established standards. The decision was fairly impromptu. This is a reasonable concern.

"Our updated protocol also addresses content that does not violate our Community Standards but that contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon. We may limit the distribution of such posts, and for repeated instances, may temporarily restrict access to our advertising tools. This step would mean that content would remain visible on Mr. Trump’s account but would not be distributed in people’s Feeds, even if they follow Mr. Trump. We may also remove the reshare button from such posts, and may stop them being recommended or run as ads."

You can agree with the decision, and you can disagree with it, it is nonetheless not as described in this post.

"I am a firm believer in free speech except when I am not."

While I won't argue that I am a fan of Trump, Louis appears to be cherry-picking quotes to misrepresent Facebook's decision / position here.

Remember when a politician who went on about "online safety" simultaneously made violent threats to journalists?

I think there is "harassment" (someone said something mean to me online), and then there is *harassment* and that is quite a bit different. Plus, this is a government official delving into the thorny area of speech.