An anonymous reader shares a report: Growing support for far-right parties is pressuring European governments to introduce stricter controls on immigration. Switzerland is set to vote on a proposal that would take the idea to the next level -- imposing a cap on its population [non-paywalled link]. The initiative could lead eventually to a blanket ban on new arrivals if the number of residents rises from around 9 million currently to above 10 million, with little distinction made between refugees, skilled workers and top managers on six-figure salaries.

Citizens will likely vote on the proposal next year under the country's unique system of plebiscites on constitutional amendments and policy, and polls suggest there's a chance they'll approve it. The risk is it could lead to shortages of critical skills that end up harming Switzerland's competitiveness. The outcome will show how far citizens are willing to go to preserve some of the traits that made their country such an appealing destination. [...] The right-wing Swiss People's Party, or SVP, won 28% of the vote in the last election with a campaign that presented Swiss citizenship as a privilege, not a right. It came up with the idea of a population limit in 2023, presenting it as a way to preserve the Swiss lifestyle and protect its environment from excessive human activity.

Global antibiotic use in livestock varies dramatically across regions, with some Asian countries using up to 80 times more antibiotics per kilogram of meat than European nations, according to new research published by Our World in Data. Thailand leads global antibiotic consumption in livestock, while Norway reports the lowest usage rates.

The study found that around 70% of global antibiotics are administered to farm animals rather than humans, raising concerns about antimicrobial resistance. Several European countries have successfully reduced veterinary antibiotic sales by more than half between 2011 and 2022 through stricter regulations, including requiring prescriptions and imposing taxes on sales.

The Netherlands saw a 54% decrease in pig farm antibiotic use between 2004 and 2016 without negative impacts on animal welfare or farm economics. Researchers suggest global livestock antibiotic use could fall by two-thirds if consumption were reduced to 50 milligrams per kilogram of meat produced.

A law professor serving on the EFF's board of directors (and advisory boards for the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Democracy and Technology) offers this analysis of "the push for stricter rules for internet platforms," reviewing proposed changes to the liability-limiting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — and speculating about what the changes would accomplish: Short of repeal, several initiatives aim to change section 230. Eleven bills have been introduced in the Senate and nine in the House of Representatives to amend section 230 in various ways.... Some would widen the categories of harmful conduct for which section 230 immunity is unavailable. At present, section 230 does not apply to user-posted content that violates federal criminal law, infringes intellectual property rights, or facilitates sex trafficking. One proposal would add to this list violations of federal civil laws.

Some bills would condition section 230 immunity on compliance with certain conditions or make it unavailable if the platforms engage in behavioral advertising. Others would require platforms to spell out their content moderation policies with particularity in their terms of service (TOS) and would limit section 230 immunity to TOS violations. Still others would allow users whose content was taken down in "bad faith" to bring a lawsuit to challenge this and be awarded $5,000 if the challenge was successful. Some bills would impose due process requirements on platforms concerning removal of user-posted content. Other bills seek to regulate platform algorithms in the hope of stopping the spread of extremist content or in the hope of eliminating biases...

Neither legislation nor an FCC rule-making may be necessary to significantly curtail section 230 as a shield from liability. Conservative Justice Thomas has recently suggested a reinterpretation of section 230 that would support imposing liability on Internet platforms as "distributors" of harmful content... Section 230, after all, shields these services from liability as "speakers" and "publishers," but is silent about possible "distributor" liability. Endorsing this interpretation would be akin to adopting the notice-and-takedown rules that apply when platforms host user-uploaded files that infringe copyrights.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Beeftopia for sharing the article, which ultimately concludes: - Notice-and-takedown regimes have long been problematic because false or mistaken notices are common and platforms often quickly take-down challenged content, even if it is lawful, to avoid liability...

- For the most part, these platforms promote free speech interests of their users in a responsible way. Startup and small nonprofit platforms would be adversely affected by some of the proposed changes insofar as the changes would enable more lawsuits against platforms for third-party content. Fighting lawsuits is costly, even if one wins on the merits.

- Much of the fuel for the proposed changes to section 230 has come from conservative politicians who are no longer in control of the Senate.

- The next Congress will have a lot of work to do. Section 230 reform is unlikely to be a high priority in the near term. Yet, some adjustments to that law seem quite likely over time because platforms are widely viewed as having too much power over users' speech and are not transparent or consistent about their policies and practices.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Imposing a stricter measure to control the spread of the coronavirus, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would start requiring people in New York to wear masks or face coverings in public whenever social distancing was not possible. The order will take effect on Friday and will apply to people who are unable to keep six feet away from others in public settings, such as on a bus or subway, on a crowded sidewalk or inside a grocery store.

Mr. Cuomo said local governments would enforce the order, but he noted that riders without face coverings would not be ejected from public transit. The pandemic has devastated New York's public transit system, with 59 workers having died of the virus and 2,269 testing positive for the infection. The state would consider issuing civil penalties to people who fail to abide by the order, but not criminal penalties: "You're not going to go to jail for not wearing a mask," Mr. Cuomo said. Permitted face coverings include proper masks, as well as scarves or bandannas, the governor said. Maryland and New Jersey have also issued similar rules.

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has finally started to roll out its new rules for small drones. The agency was notably slow to do so — slow enough that many cities, counties, and states beat them to it. Now, the FAA's rules are clashing with established and more developed rules, frustrating local lawmakers and confusing drone hobbyists. "Lawmakers said the agency's drone rules did not go as far as many states and municipalities that are explicitly banning flights within cities and over homes, strengthening privacy protections and imposing steep criminal and financial penalties on violators."

The FAA's slow and unilateral response is causing local officials to fight the nationwide regulations. "There was not supposed to be such a divide between local and federal drone regulations. Congress instructed the FAA three years ago to write laws for drones, a nascent technology at the time. Yet the agency struggled to create first-time rules for the category that would balance a public outcry over safety concerns with the economic benefits drone makers promised from the machines." Meanwhile, tech companies focused on drone development are pleased with the FAA's light touch. There are hobbyists on each side of the issue; some are glad to avoid more restrictive and complicated local regulations, while others wish the government would do more to slow the rush of unprepared and reckless new drone owners.

segphault writes "Ars Technica provides some insight into technology legislation scheduled for congressional review in 2006. From the article: 'Congress plans to cover some important tech issues in 2006 [...] like digital communication, intellectual property law, and computer security. [...] Patent reform is also on the menu. Industry groups have requested that the government allow them to participate in the patent review process, and some legislators have discussed imposing stricter constraints upon patent related injunctions..'"