I ran my own BBS back in the day as a teenager. Most of the people on BBSes were there because they had an interest in computers, whereas most of the people on modern social media couldn't care less about the technology and are there to discuss something else. It used to be that you had to have some basic knowledge to get online, now phones come preloaded with the Facebook app.

Basically, the normies/"Eternal Septembers" took over.

They've been using AI based moderation for awhile now. Was actually a bit hilarious the time my partner ended up getting a brief "vacation" from Facebook because it misidentified a picture of a new Samsung phone as containing nudity.

Let's break this down:

They chose the restaurant because of incorrect/misleading information on Disney's site. The site is subject to the same blanket TOS as most of Disney's online portals.

The restaurant made a terrible, deadly mistake. That was the crux of the issue, and trying to argue that they wouldn't have eaten there in the first place had Disney's website explained that the restaurant was not likely to accommodate their specific needs is the kind of logic only an ambulance chasing lawyer would use.

If you have life-threatening allergies, it is on you to make sure the restaurant can accommodate you. You can't have it both ways - if you know your allergies are serious and you know you're going to verify with the restaurant, you really can't claim that incorrect information on the website was truly at fault. If the restaurant swears up and down they can accommodate you and then fail to do so, you (or in this case, your next-of-kin) has a case against the restaurant itself - not its landlord.

Look, Disney gets things wrong often enough. If they had argued that Disney's TOS means you're SOL if an alligator kills your kid on Disney property, that'd be a whole different ballgame. But this was an independently owned restaurant that screwed up badly, and the lawyers saw the potential for Disney-sized dollar signs.

Another fucking idiot AC post.

I live in central Florida. There's gas stations and McDonald's on Disney's property. Those are absolutely independent entities - Disney just happens to be their landlord. If you rent an apartment, is the landlord responsible if you poison someone?

The law should apply fairly to a company regardless of their size or whether or not you happen to hold a favorable view of them.

Google says:
The Irish restaurant in Disney Springs, Raglan Road, is owned and operated by Irish partners John Cooke and Paul Nolan through their company, Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.. Although celebrity chef Kevin Dundon was a founding partner, he ended his partnership in 2017. Disney leases the property to Great Irish Pubs Florida.

The situation is similar to how a mall (remember those?) will lease out its space to various vendors. Malls have their own terms of use that it is implied you've agreed to once you've stepped through their doors. Here's an example.

I got killed by a drunk driver while going out for a 1AM Taco Bell run, you insensitive clod! /s

The restaurant is independently owned. Disney ended up involved because their website listing (which again, is subject to the same blanket TOS as the rest of their online services) had incorrect allergy information. Disney's response, tone-deaf as it was, wasn't wrong: you're supposed to verify with the allergy accommodation information with the restaurant.

It was not a Disney owned restaurant - Disney's involvement was limited to incorrect information on their website, and their TOS basically laid out how that is to be handled.

The plaintiff had every reason to sue the restaurant for negligence, but to sue Disney would be like suing Facebook because someone in the marketplace sold you a counterfeit iPhone. Maybe you'd even be successful if could if you could prove that Facebook knew the seller was selling counterfeit goods, but again, there's usually a clause in the TOS that says it's on you to verify that you're trading with someone trustworthy and if you get screwed, your legal bone to pick would be with the seller.

In the grand scheme of things, what probably happened here was that the lawyers figured Disney would just fold and settle, which is entirely why Disney comes off as being asshole-ish in these types of situations, otherwise you'd end up with every person who slipped on some spilled popcorn in their theme parks trying to score an easy payday.

I'm sure there's some similar dynamics at play with suing OpenAI. You usually don't hear about parents suing when their teen unalives himself with a rope bought from Walmart, but this is new untested ground and there's the possibility that people might be more sympathetic to punishing an "evil" AI company, more so than the store where they buy their groceries from.

My implication was a comparison of the number of drone crashes against their other forms of delivery.

Although to be honest, even compared against other delivery industry players, I'm surprised it's not higher. Their semi truck drivers drive like maniacs.

For the most part it already is.

The major loopholes are open WiFi hotspots and prepaid phone cards. If we required ID for those things, you're pretty much keeping kids off the internet without their parents being involved in some way.

The ironic thing is though, most kids are not online via a clandestine burner phone they bought with cash and connected through the WiFi at Starbucks - their parents gave them the phone/tablet and pay for the plan and/or home broadband connection. The parents are just under some weird delusion that the entirety of the internet is safe for children (it's not, nor should it be).

Disney uses the same TOS for many of their online portals, which was why the news ran with "it's the Disney+ terms of service".

Plus, it really is the victim's fault if you go into a restaurant with a potentially life-threatening food allergy and don't bother to let the wait staff know you have an allergy. Assuming the allergy information online is 100% accurate is like playing Russian roulette. Kinda like giving your kid unrestricted internet access and hoping everything just sort of works out.

Wait until you find out about all the accidents their road-based delivery vehicles cause. Hell, a few years back an Amazon driver crashed into my car while it was parked in my driveway.

It happens, and at least in my case they made good on paying for the damages.

And therein lies the problem with their business model, at least as far as use by the general public goes. Most people aren't going to earn any money back making AI generated songs. Is it worth subscribing just to make a few silly meme songs every once in awhile? Probably not.

So, we're pretty much stuck with this stuff being used in the same way Coke used AI to make their holiday ad - they could've hired real artists, but they didn't.

The days when you could turn a silly idea into a silly song with a prompt for free are probably not long for this world. Of course, this is the situation with most AI tools, eventually the companies want to start seeing some black ink.

A lot of today's pop acts involve collaborating on the lyrics, sung over backing tracks assembled on a computer using sample loops. What AI music generation brings to the table is you don't need to be wealthy or have industry connections to turn your idea into a song. Of course, without those wealth and industry connections, you're not going to be selling the end result anyway, so making AI songs is mostly just limited in usefulness as something for your own amusement. Also, an AI "band" can't go on tour.

Sure, there's the possibility that companies will pull a Coca-Cola and use AI tools rather than hiring actual artists when they need a jingle or some background music for a TV show, but that's a future that's coming for every job capable of being automated.

Just wait until you find out where Elon Musk's trans daughter went to school. Hint: It wasn't public schools.

Also, if there's been any societal shift towards LGBTQ+ acceptance among today's youth (it's been a long, long time since I was in school), here's another fact that's going to rattle your cage - it's not being pushed by the teachers, but by peers. You might not remember what it was like to be young, but those of us who haven't lost too many of those memories to senescence can tell you that teachers have never been the cool trend setters that kids desire to emulate. Think about it - if teachers really were so effective influencers of youth behavior, smoking/vaping, teenage pregnancy, drug use, bullying, etc. wouldn't exist. Hell, we had to pass laws banning phones in classes because teachers couldn't even successfully get kids to put their phones away.

Now, what could've given youth the idea that social acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals is a normal thing? Probably social media, accessed through those devices that damn near every parent has provided their kids.

I realize not reading the article is something of a /. tradition, but I've literally quoted part of the summary where they're pretending that nothing is done to mitigate brute-force attacks (which as you rightfully pointed out, has been recognized as threat for as long as there has been an infosec industry).

I wouldn't be wearing my captain obvious hat if the article hasn't pretended that brute force attacks are some kind of scary new threat, of which there is absolutely no defense besides making your password contain a minimum of one each of the following attribute:

An uppercase letter
A lowercase letter
A special character
Your favorite emoji
A DNA sample from your pet
A short essay on whether you think streaming services are fairly priced
Cannot reuse a previously used password