I note that you can only enter an exact date into this system. As well as allowing users to be ambiguous, (for instance, if you want to broadcast being over 18 only,) some people don't know their exact birth date and would need a range.

How about we present the message: "it is fraud to advertise a device as suitable for use on the internet unless you are committing to fixing any critical security flaws found on it for the lifetime of that device".

To get the intended effect, you need to go into Mission to the Unknown expecting the Doctor to turn up at some point, watch The Myth Makers having no idea what that was about, and finish up watching The Massacre wondering if the whole thing is coming to an end. Over the course of 20 weeks, naturally. It's a period when the show deliberately abandons having the individually named episodes neatly arranged into different stories.

Doctor Who in particular, has not only generally been progressive, but sometimes quite radical. Take one of my favourite 60s stories for example, The War Games, which starts by looking like it's set in WWI before revealing a larger sci-fi setup, turns the commanders of both sides of a number of wars into aliens with more in common with each other than the soldiers they command, directing the war by playing board games with each other, to which the solution is for all soldiers everywhere to unite with each other in collective mutiny against their commanders. Rather than having a military command structure with captain as protagonist, it has a hero who hates guns and typically defeats enemies representing power by being more clever than them and refusing to take them seriously.

If you think the US Democrat party is left, let alone far-left, you need to try talking to an actual leftist at some point in your life. The left want to do things like abolish capital. The last time the Democrats were in power, they didn't even shut the concentration camps.

Make it explicit that anything purchased by a consumer must not refuse to work as advertised under any circumstances unless prominently advertised at the time of purchase or obvious from the basic nature of the product, enforced by the criminal justice system with charges such as fraud and criminal damage. "I refuse to work unless you agree to this EULA", "I refuse to work unless you connect to the internet", "I refuse to work unless you make an account," "I refuse to do this function any more after this software update" should all be criminal without the purchase contract clearly including them.

Anything said when touring a place to rent can affect the contract which results, since making promises before signing a contract commits you to those promises. So I hope they're ready for the point where they discover that their LLM committed them to something stupid because of LLMs saying things randomly. Or to whatever the renter wants, because we don't know how to defend LLMs against a sufficiently clever person they're interacting with getting them to say whatever that person wants.

This sort of thing is already illegal (at least in the UK, and I'm sure many other countries,) existing laws just aren't being enforced. If you purport to "sell" something but it will actually stop working at some point when you do something of your own due to how you've programmed it, then that's not suitable for the purpose it's advertised for, you're breaking the clause in the Sale of Goods act about the buyer enjoying quiet possession of the goods, and it's a deliberate implied false representation, so that's fraud.

If you have good intentions, you simply don't unleash a bot on the internet with no idea of what it might do. That has the "allow society to take all the risk" intention, which is not a good one.

Run quickly on some extremely resource-constrained system perhaps?

Don't confuse someone speaking about an area completely outside of their field of expertise with someone speaking about their field of expertise.

RMS basically has the right answer, but only limited to his field of work. Copyright and patents are both examples of capital, or private property, this meaning concepts of "ownership" which go beyond personal property. Personal property is the things you use as part of your everyday life, objects which are like an extension of yourself. This deserves protection. Capital, or private property, is things you own in order to exert power over other people, to restrict their life in accordance with your interests. This is the concept which needs to be discarded, which creates a ruling class controlling a working class, is precipitating fascism and destroying the ecosystem etc. RMS is ethical enough to get this when it comes to the things he's familiar with, but since he's so focused on the world of software he hasn't quite made the leap to realise that it being possible to own things like factories or the homes other people live in is the same kind of problem.

Copyleft, incidentally, makes use of the law of "copyright" to create a relation which doesn't work in the personal interests of everyone, but works in the interests of the community. This is what makes it different to the normal use of "copyright". (In quotes because it is actually a restriction, not a right. Taking away the rights of others is not a right.)

The idea that you should pay attention when someone tells you to be nice to other people but reject requests to be nasty to other people makes perfect sense to me.

Memes can be anything which can be used in internet postings. Like the first couple of things which come to my mind when you say "meme" are "Longcat is LOOOOOOOOOONG" and "Millhouse is not a meme". What characterises memes is that the community keeps using them over and over again (hence an idea which replicates itself). People who think they can create something and instantly call it a meme are just lazy.

It's very easy to make contracts, they often don't require a signature. If you go into a shop, pick up an item, give the right amount of money to the cashier and walk out with it, that money becomes owned by the store and the item becomes owned by you because a contract got formed. This message just isn't enough to form the kind of contract needed to shift house ownership.