I dislike Meta as much as the next person, ditto pedophilia, but out of earnest curiosity I want to ask: assuming there were no tech or legal barriers to doing so, would you consider it a good thing to mandate government-monitored cameras in everyone's homes to verify the absence of sexual child abuse? If not, then what is the difference -- again, putting aside tech and legal issues -- between the in-home-camera scenario and forced monitorability of otherwise-private messages?

Agreed. I bought my last Apple machine over a decade ago, despite owning many many of them prior; they've moved too far into the space of "your machine isn't really yours, and btw we know what you want better than you do".

"Google is betting you will let it hoover up yet more data about you." There, fixed.

The article you link is quoting a commentator, not a member nor spokesperson for the fed. Misinformation much?

That seems overly black-and-white. We ban (prohibit) various kinds of speech, for good reasons; for example, it's not ok for me to go express myself by marching up to my neighbor and saying I'm going to kill him (even if I never intended to). We judge things on a case by case basis.

We live in a gray area: judges are not supposed to disregard the law and do whatever they want, but they are allowed (in fact often required) to interpret the law, and attempt to determine -- by dint of their inferences about its intent and their observations about how legally well-constructed it is -- what the outcome of a particular case should be.

Is this the same guy that proved time travel was possible by generating a negative energy density gravitational lens using any common coffee maker?

-

Great post, thank you.

It occurs to me there's a similarity between the above and what chatbots do that's labeled "hallucinating", which is that the chatbots spew lies/bullshit just as confidently as they "recite facts"... similar to the car just deciding to go forward. And the reasons are basically the same: neither system has a true understanding of what's transpiring.

"Nothing is manifesting itself as I interrogate my inner paintings."

Exactly my thought. The article math says they employ 22,000 people... which is about 21,500 more than what I'd have guessed it takes to maintain their feature set and related administrative functions.

I agree with the notion of prosecuting the guy, but saying that lawbreakers can be spuriously murdered goes too far. Breaking the law does NOT make someone ineligible for due process and other legal safeguards; without such processes and safeguards, any "legal" system would be a sham.

Yes. When ten billion dollars is at stake, if there's even a 1-in-10 chance you'll win one tenth of the disputed amount, you most definitely send a squad of lawyers.

As families arrive at NetflixLand, they'll experience the wonder of an array of couches far and wide, exceeding the imagination!

Wow, willing to go to judicial proceedings... they must really believe in the rightness of their position!!

... paying customers will no longer be the product!! (right?...)