Thank you for the information. I guess what I don't understand is why Canadians will be unable to view postings of news stories from non-Canadian sources. Surely the Canadian legislation doesn't affect non-Canadian news sources.

According to the summary:

Are they referring here to content originating from Canadian news organizations that are being shared by international organizations or all news from international sources (whatever that means)? If they're blocking all news from Canadians, I have to ask why? Doesn't the law in Canada apply only to content produced by Canadian news organizations? Why would Facebook block links to The New York Times for instance? Or am I misunderstanding what they're doing. I've seen several articles about this and they are very unclear on what is being blocked. Does anyone know precisely what is blocked and for whom?

Sure they can. Many states have so-called "long arm" statutes that apply outside their borders. Even countries do. For example, it is a crime (in the U.S.) for U.S. citizens to have sex with minors (under eighteen) while abroad even if the "minor" is above the age of consent in the country where the act takes place.

Supreme Court Reaffirms Freedom of Speech by setting standards for charges of criminal harassment stemming from texts on the Internet. In this case, someone was sentenced to more than four years (!) for a string of text messages for which it hadn't been proven that he would have been aware could have been perceived as threatening.

I hate to break it to you, but that's not AI. That's how students write now.

So all TikTok has to do is change its name and then the law doesn't apply. Sounds like an easy fix.

Yes, it is okay, because Youtube isn't making money SPECIFICALLY from videos which "call for violence" as you say. Youtube makes money from ALL videos. They don't have a preference for violent content and that's why they are shielded from liability. It's like saying that the phone company makes money from long distance calls in which one party incites another to commit a crime. (Someone calling a hitman to put a contract on their wife, for instance.) This is true, but the phone company makes money on ALL calls. The phone system is not set up to specifically facilitate crimes, although phones can be and are used for that purpose. We don't hold the phone company liable for those calls.

Translation: The big players like Google, Microsoft, etc. are terrified that a disruptive technology like AI might challenge their dominance in the world of computing so they want a big regulatory regime to slow potential startups from overtaking them. The big boys have the resources to work with (and help shape) the regulatory system; it's the new entrepreneurs that would most likely lack the resources to comply with the complex schemes they're suggesting. Think of the other disruptive technologies that have shaped the world we live in today: the semi-conductor, the microcomputer, the internet, etc. etc. None of these were burdened with heavy regulation and as a result small companies like Apple (which started out of a garage) were able to grow and later change the world. Why would we now completely change direction and start regulating the tech industry?

I agree with your first statement: "This isn't consciousness. Not yet." I'm not sure I agree with your next statement "probably not even close", and I strongly disagree with your statement "Probably not for centuries." This is advancing much faster than most people thought it would. First people believed computers could never beat grandmasters at chess. Then a computer beat the world champion. Then people said, computers may be good at chess, but computers would never beat the best Go players cause that game requires much deeper pattern recognition, etc. then a computer beat the world Go champion. Then people said a computer could never pass the Turing test and now computers can do just that. People keep moving the goal posts cause they don't like the idea that computers might soon surpass us in every measure of intelligence. We humans have been at the top of the heap for quite some time now, and it's hard to admit it might not last forever. I think it will happen much sooner than anyone expects.

When has aggressive regulation helped anything? How about we neither ban nor attempt to regulate TikTok and instead let individuals decide for themselves whether or not they want the app. Its privacy issues are well known by now, so people can make an informed decision for themselves.

I'm sure the hackers are quaking in their boots in their home country which probably has no extradition treaty with the U.S. at the mere thought that they might be violating one or more U.S. laws!

Unfortunately, all it really takes is one incompetent list admin.

Obviously details are missing and for good reason. Until the vulnerability is patched (which might not be so easy) then others could exploit pumps using the same technique. So, it's not surprising the article doesn't go into the specifics.

It could certainly be a trademark violation, but it would also be a copyright violation as a derivative work.

If the kid is already dead, then yes, there's no point in apologizing to the kid. You might want to apologize to the parents though...