• Do not kill, or through intentional action cause physical harm to another human being, except in defence.

• Every human has the right to their own body, thoughts and words, upon which nothing except the above law shall infringe.

• Where it does not conflict with previous laws, respect physical property of the public and other individuals - it is not to be destroyed, taken or abused without permission of its holder(s).

Programmer asks: how many bits for the integer?

At 32 bits it’s “just” a Thanos snap with extra pain

Now that devices are starting to have built in features with AI automatically combing through all information on them, the idea of this sort of stuff being logged in the first place is concerning.

For instance, should someone prompting an AI to describe them beating up and torturing their boss be flagged for “potentially violent tendencies”? Who decides the “limit” where “privacy” no longer applies and stuff should be flagged, logged and sent off to authorities?

As I see it, the real issue is people being hurt, not text or fictive materials, however sickening they might be.

If the resources invested in spying on people and making databases were instead directed towards funding robust and publicly available psychiatric care I expect that’d be more efficient.

Marginalization is not universal or absolute. You can easily have people who are marginalized in some contexts, and privileged in others.

An easy example is religion.

A christian in Spain is probably considered part of the majority and privileged, meanwhile, that same person could be subject to intense persecution in a country like Saudi Arabia because of the same beliefs.

The same can be applied to this child being bullied by their racist peers.

In addition to what @LwL said - It has to do with how testing is done, and that some diseases can’t really be tested for. It is quite expensive, and is generally done on small samples from lots of people mixed together. If it is positive they split the batch and test again (look up binary search).

The lower the incidence rate of diseases, the larger batches can be done. Ditching certain denographics with significantly higher risks for certain diseases can make testing orders of magnitudes cheaper and faster. (Other groups, at least where I live, include people who recently changed partner, recently went abroad, have ever gotten a blood transfusion, have gone through a recent surgery, have recently been sick, etc. etc.)

Accounting for taxes and grid fees, between 0.05€ & 1.2€/kWh depending on the season.

The court’s order for an injunction applies only to the sections relating to defining and reporting data on content violation categories. Social media companies will still be under the remainder of AB 587’s requirements, which include semi-annually creating publicly viewable reports to California on the current terms of service, how automated systems enforce the terms of service, how companies respond to user-reported violations, and what actions the companies take against violators.

Seems like the higher courts ruling is sensible overall.

It’s hypocritical, and I don’t like it. With that said, most politicians are hypocrites, which is why I generally dislike politicians.

I download videos using revanced and seal, works flawlessly. Really neat.

The country implementing this is Brazil, so I am comparing them to Russia - and if we implement this in the EU, it will be a huge step towards Russian style authoritarianism.

As for why such a move would compromise the effectiveness of our votes, see my other comment here.

Your comment makes it apparent that you fundamentally do not even understand what censorship is. Legality has nothing to do with what censorship is and everything to do with limiting freedom of communication. Even something as basic (and undeniably both good and necessary) as taking down cp content is censorship.

In my view, censorship is inherently good only in limited circumstances, usually involving either that A) The very creation of the content is irreversably harmful (see above) or B) The content is highly intrusive (essentially forcing the audience to partake) in combination with consumption of said content being irreversably harmful (consider regulation of advertising in public spaces).

Historically, freedom of communication and organization has been the primary antidote to many authoritarian organizations (organized religions, autocratic monarchies, fascist & totalitarian regimes, corrupt leaders etc.), and this necessarily requires that centralized institutions cannot (in general) be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable discourse - that includes regulating “disinformation” outside of limited scopes.

Fundamentally, if our leaders say we are incapable of discerning fact from fiction, and rob us of that autonomy, they are also robbing us of our ability to freely choose our leaders, effectively demolishing democracy.

I’ve written more than enough to mysteriously fall out a window in Russia or disappear into a “reeducation” camp in the PRC.

However, if you crave the boot of censorship so much, why not try it? Trade places with one of the more than billion people chafing under it in one form or another and we’ll see if you can report back after a month or two.

That’s frankly a terrible idea. Us not doing this is what differentiates the free(er) world from authoritarian regimes like Russia or the PRC.

Happened once a long time ago, incredibly vivid dream and it was quite nice.

I agree that it would be better if people used votes as a marker of quality, but strongly disagree on moderation action based on voting.

Personally, there’s three scenarios when I use downvotes w/o commenting:

• Someone has already voiced the reason

• I don’t have time/energy to comment

• The target is a censored echo-chamber that will ban anyone who disagrees (can’t vote/show disapproval if you’re banned) - example would be .ml communities having moments about how stalinist USSR did nothing wrong.

Anyway, once a post from a community rises sufficiently to pop up on all, it becomes a part of the larger discussion, and voting will shift towards the opinions of the larger fediverse. This is also usually when communities get discovered by more people. If a community doesn’t want the engagement of the wider user-base, a closed blog may be more suitable as a forum, or alternatively have an instance w/o downvoting.

When browsing all or new I do so both to break out of my bubble and to vote on content (usually stuff I find interesting).

Oh !worldnews@lemmy.ml does have moderation. The mods there are very deliberate in the things they do(n’t) allow. Woe betide you if you ever criticize certain historic (or current) authoritarian genocidal regimes.

Expectations of what is part of the discussion, not expectations of privacy.

As for doxxing, that’s a problem with all social media - but possibly worse on the “regular” ones (people having mobs attacking their houses, being arrested in countries with censorship laws etc.)

Minecraft for the fully breakable/buildable procedural open world.

Admins and moderators can already take care of these sorts of problems.

That’s because it’s supposed to be. I was on Reddit for a decade until their management shit the bed, and these kinds of problems weren’t a thing there despite the much larger userbase.

For the record, to me it’s less about privacy and more about setting expectations. I’m not anonymous online, I’m pseudonymous, I’ve had this handle for a long time. I am my online identity, and when I post and vote I don’t feel anonymous, even if I’m relatively protected from someone knocking on my door or messaging my boss about a statement.

If voting “ledgers” aren’t presented in the discussion, that’s because they aren’t intended to be part of the discussion. This reduces the value of influential individuals votes (ooh Bill Gates liked X, Kamala Harris disliked Y etc.) and shifts focus to how the community values of the content. It’s the same reason that we follow communities rather than individuals. We get an internet “hive mind” of sorts without cult of personality.