My first guess is because sending voice is a priority, whereas sending data can come later.

In an emergency, people can use voice to coordinate efforts, report and transmit information, describe situations, etc. It is also extremely low bandwidth.

When you start transmitting data, the bandwidth requirements go up. Consider way back in the beginning, the lowly 300-baud modem. The same carrier that could transmit voice with ease, was struggling with sending a single picture. But once you open the floodgates of wanting "data", the problems ramp up. Why should I only be able to talk when I should be able to:

- Video chat
- Transmit live images
- Give large amounts of recorded data (medical information, weather, tactical reports, you get the idea)

It also means higher hardware requirements. Voice means you need a microphone, maybe a tuner, and a way to convert the signal to an audio frequency. When you add video that means also including cameras and screens to display information. You'll probably want a more sophisticated means of inputting data, like keyboards or USB slots. And it goes on and on.

And before you think, "I'll just use my cell phone as it can do all that and more," the emergency he's referring to is likely something more catastrophic than a down cell tower. Think **ALL** cell towers are down. Think major earthquake. Think tsunami.

Are you able to open your cell phone and rewire to something other than cell technology? Probably not. But I could take a battery, some wire, and a speaker and get a working AM radio receiver.

"the coercive tactics of a domestic or foreign power should not be directly or indirectly influencing these determinations."

The reason behind this is simple; they make phones/devices/operating systems that are obsolete in a short period of time.

If they had to explain the hassle of what it would take to migrate all of your passkey information to a new device, people would be hesitant to constantly upgrade their devices. So rather than being swamped with support calls or customers pushing back on buying the latest and greatest, they made it simpler to migrate passkeys so people feel like they can use this new uber-secure method for logging in, while still having the convenience of being able to "upgrade" whenever they choose.

This is akin to password managers that also offer to be your OTP authenticator app. Not only will they store and fill in your name and password, but it will fill in the 6-digit code so you don't have to look it up elsewhere. It completely removes the "2" of "2FA". But people don't want real security, they want convenient security.

So if talking about piracy is illegal, does that mean that us talking about people talking about piracy mean that we are all accessories after the fact? Are the other people in that forum, even if they didn't engage, but "listened" to the talk of piracy accomplices?

These two things exist at the same time very easily. You're comparing two different problems and assuming they must be somehow combined.

The Apple Store has a walled garden making it impossible to get in unless you are allowed in through the one and only gate. But it's not that hard to get through the gate if you have the money. Inside the garden is all manner of weeds, stumps, dead trees, and worthless shrubbery along with a few pretty flowers and wonderful plants. But they can all exist in "harmony" because they made it through the same gate.

So picture a secluded, exclusive residential community -- One-way in, one-way out, with a guard always on duty. No one gets past without their say so. But all it takes to get their say so is a large bribe. Doesn't matter who you are, you still need to bribe the watch person. And if the bribe works you can loiter as much as you want with the upper-crust.

And if enough people complain to get you thrown out, just change your name, put on some glasses, and bride the guard again. Poof! You're back in the walled garden.

We've had this same argument before. You can read my previous answer here: https://slashdot.org/comments....

Guess what, the internet runs on recommendation algorithms.

Slashdot has a recommendation engine. Stack Overflow has a recommendation engine. Patreon has a recommendation engine. GitHub has a recommendation engine. SourceForge has a recommendation engine.

All of these things have user-generated content, and all of these things, beyond showing you what you specifically ask for, show you what they think they should show you. Sure, you can use the site without that engine, but a large chunk of functionality will go away if they can't suggest new content to you.

And if this lawsuit goes through, sites will start shutting down because they cannot afford to slip up even once. There will always be a Karen/Kevin just waiting to pounce with a lawsuit. These sites have better things to do than monitor, tag, collate, and curate every bit of user-generated content that comes in. That includes not just the initial content submission, but comments to that content, plus double checking when someone edits any of their content.

As an example, GitHub would need to:
* Inspect every binary uploaded
* Review every code commit
* Preemptively review every Pull Request (including updates based on feedback)
* Review the feedback on every Pull Request (including future updates)
* Review every bug report (including future edits)
* Review every comment on that bug (including future edits)
* Review any policy or action documentation (including future edits)
* Review every wiki entry (including future edits)
* Oh, and make sure their own content is also okay

Even a mom and pop site would need to hire a number of employees just for all of this monitoring. This doesn't mean we're suddenly creating new jobs. This means that most small to medium websites would so much in paying unitask employees, keeping lawyers on retainer, and paying for frivolous lawsuits, that it's easier to just not have a business in the first place. Then all that is left will be the Google and Amazon giants you think this lawsuit is hurting.

How about this... YOU are a recommendation engine! YOU take in other user-generated content (watching movies/tv, reading books, input from other people, your own experiences, etc).

So what if you tell someone they should try this curry dish. But guess what, there are peanuts in that dish and the person you recommended it to has a severe nut allergy. Because of YOUR recommendation, they now get to sue you for hospital bills, the ambulance ride, pain and suffering, and anything else their lawyer can tack on. It was your responsibility to filter what foods your recommend. You should have known that this person had an undisclosed allergy and would act upon your opinion.

That is the feeling all website owners will feel. Any move you make puts the bullseye of a lawsuit on your back and you can lose everything. I know because I wear that bullseye every day as it is. I've already drafted a "closing up shop" letter just in case something like this passes.

Say I run a simple forum about gardening. Everything is on the up and up and we all get along talking about plants.

Joe Simpleton creates an account, because they too, like gardening. At the bottom of the main page, I show lists of recent new members, who is currently on, and popular posters. Joe clicks on the link of a popular poster; Elphaba Greenthumb. Turns out Elphaba's profile and some of their posts talk about using herbs for treating ailments, folklore about wolfs-bane, and ingredients to brew a tea to help someone sleep.

My "recommendation engine" is promoting *witchcraft*!

If 230 is repealed, I can now be sued as I put up a link for content that the viewer did not deem appropriate and may even be illegal in the region where they live. As the owner, it was my responsibility to filter all content to make sure that only people that want to see information on "witchcraft" are exposed to it.

I would be forced to geofence anyone logging in, know the laws of every region of the US, make sure every profile is tagged correctly (because I would also be responsible if the member incorrectly tagged themselves), and build up filters so that I don't let any witches show up in those areas. And that also becomes retroactive, so I would not only have to deal with new members coming in, but go back through all my existing members and "correct" their content, plus any changes anyone makes.

Even after all that, I could still face frivolous lawsuits. While the case will likely be thrown out, as the owner, I still have to take the time and money to defend my website/company.

The overhead required to manually verify every account, every biography, every photo, every forum post, every everything for validity, content, and filters to apply, is financially crushing to any business that allows user entered information to be shown. The manpower to monitor it all, the lawyers that need to be on retainer, the constant vigilance of watching for laws to change, the backup savings required to handle any suits that get through and require my company to take action... It's not worth it.

People are judging this based on Google, Facebook, and YouTube who have the resources. But for every one of those evil empires, there are hundreds of thousands of "little guys" that would be forced to live by the same rules and be crushed out of existence, leaving you with JUST the empires.

I am speaking as the owner of one or more websites that have a social media aspect...

As the owner, I want to be able to put that same sign on my "front door" as the local coffee shop. Anyone can come in and and create a profile, but if their words or their actions are malicious, then I should have the right to remove them from my service. As stated in this article from findlaw.com{1}:

"[...]It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to [refuse service].
You can usually refuse service in the following situations:
* When a customer is not properly dressed
* When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive
* When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
* When there are safety concerns
* When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
* When a customer is intoxicated or high
* When you need to protect another customer's privacy"

So if someone creates a profile and then starts spouting hate speech, the administration of the website should have the right to kick them off the site, or at the very least, silence them so they do not disturb all of our other customers.

This same philosophy can even work on sites like Facebook. If you want to talk about what a proud boy you are and that you are a true American for not getting a shot, then go for it.. On your own forum, on your own page. Not on my Dungeons and Dragons page. And Facebook needs to supply the tools so I do not need to see those posts. Don't "recommend" them, don't suggest "You might know" or "Other people you follow listen to this".{2} And in turn, if I go on those pages and talk crap about the things they believe, they have every right to ban me from those pages.

Freedom of speech only says that the government cannot stifle what someone says. It does not hold water for private business, and it doesn't mean I have to listen/pay attention/believe what you say. Keep your soap box, but take it somewhere else.

1. https://www.findlaw.com/legalb...
2. Never going to happen. Can't even get Facebook to stop offering to post "Memories" of my dog that passed away. Heartache every time they pop up.

And by memory safe they mean hire developers that remember to check for Null Pointer Exceptions, Buffer Overflow, no passwords in the git repository... That sort of thing, right?

> As the name implies, this is a 75% keyboard..

I would have never guessed that the 75 in the name means that I'm only buying 75% of a keyboard. Does that mean my Logitech Wireless 360 is over three times the size of a normal keyboard? If I want a smaller keyboard (which I generally don't because I like my 10-key) I would look for the word "mini" in the name, not 75. Otherwise I'll miss out on all the 82% keyboards.

And I have yet to own a single keyboard that had a "knob" that did anything more than volume control. So when did this bit of uselessness become "standard"?

There are so many issues with podcasts it is not surprising that there are no new podcasts in the leader boards...

1. Finding out about new podcasts
There is little to be found in the advertising of podcasts; they are either referenced by a podcast you are already listening to, found by dumb luck in a podcast aggregator, word of mouth, or you actually go looking for it. By reference only really happens if the other podcast is on the same network (TWiT network will talk about other TWiT network podcasts). Aggregators don't promote new, just what they think you'll listen to and possibly earn a commission from. Very few people talk about podcasts except to people that already listen to the same podcasts. And who is actually seeking out new podcasts to add to their existing list?

2. Time is a finite resource
The best times to listen to podcasts are while on the road or working out. People are not traveling nearly as much as last year or the year before. With no commute time, there is no time to zone out to listen to your existing podcasts leaving less time to add on even more. And when working out you want to set it and go; not try something new for 15 minutes, hate it, stop and look for another podcast, repeat until you find one you can handle for your full workout. Just stick to what you know.

In the same vein, since we are mostly home-bound, those with in-home families may have trouble listening to the podcasts they currently follow. With no "down time", they may have trouble justifying with their significant other/children, "I need to tune you out for a few hours every day." Which leads into...

3. Podcast length
A lot of the podcasts I've been listening to have slowly been creeping up in length. What was once half an hour is now forty-five minutes. One hour becomes an hour and a half. Two hours is more often two and a half. All of this creep is fighting into time I could dedicate into something else; like a new podcast. I have about 8-9 hours worth of programming a week. So about an hour a day, with a little extra on the weekend. If I start adding new podcasts, that can bump me up to two hours every day. And if they start running long, that bumps my schedule even more. It's safer to just stay with the podcasts I know and listen to, and leave a buffer for when they go long, than add more and run into backlog issues.

4. Content
What is this new podcast going to bring that doesn't already exist in a podcast? What is this podcast doing that I can't get from playing YouTube in the background? Is the content of the first episode strong enough to make me want to subscribe and hear episode two? Is the content too long? too short? Does it barely scratch the surface or does it go into such minutia that I just want them to move on to something else? Is the content worth a whole podcast series or could it just be boiled down into a single blog?

Thanks to apps like Anchor (bought by Spotify), anyone CAN BE a podcaster... But not everyone SHOULD BE a podcaster.

I wish I could find the article, but it's not that Alexa (or anything else) is picking up on the voice conversation. It's your phones using proximity and timing.

You friend bought boots. That purchase, through whatever means, is now tied to him, to his phone, to his Facebook/Amazon/Google/Meta profiles. He then went to your house and spent time there. This triggered your Facebook/Amazon/Google/Meta profiles; since there is a relation between you two, and this was not a quick encounter, there must be similarities. Therefore, the advertisers hit you up with your friends' recent purchases.

* Maybe they bought something you would also like?
* Maybe they bought something and you would buy something similar as a gift?
* Maybe they bought something and they will spend more time at your home so you should buy a spare?
* And maybe, just maybe, it was also talked about so now you see an ad plus have a recent review in your head bettering the chances you'd buy it yourself.

So after this holiday season, don't be surprised when you get ads for Grandma's favorite toothpaste, or Uncle Joe's hair restoration creme.

Because Disney+, which will only ever stream at the highest possible resolution, is now going to stream even more data and help me reach my data cap even quicker.

I second this. Been using xBrowserSync for a while now.

It got off to a rocky start (had trouble syncing if a browser made a lot of changes quickly), but it's getting better and better.

Obviously the parent post was written by a bot.
Symmetrical sentence stacking.
No human being would stack sentences like this.