Posting anonymously now just to get the last word in? Nice try but I see right through that as well as your sneaky attempt to put words in my mouth in order to make your fictional version of my argument either to discount.

A legacy of poor enforcement isn't the same thing as it being legal.

Or blatant lying in advertisements, for that matter. Or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. And yes, as you say, there's plenty of precedent on restricting politicians and various government officials from unduly enriching themselves using the power and/or influence of their position. There's in fact tons of well-established legal precedents where public well-being preempts free speech rights. Anyone making this argument in this fashion isn't doing it in good faith.

Bullshit. You can't just characterize any business plan as a first amendment right. The first amendment doesn't protect pyramid schemes, or robbing liquor stores. Even just trying to make this argument makes you a bad person.

I was in an impoverished school still using textbooks that were published sometime in the 70's, and this "11%" rule of thumb rings a bell to me too. For what it's worth, I recall learning around the same time that the total energy conversion rate of the typical internal combustion engine being a mere 24%.

Let's train our AI on a bunch of fiction where AI goes crazy and kills everyone! What could possibly go wrong?

But note how when it comes to copyright infringement claims suddenly the argument changes to "but it learns like a real person so that's protected by fair use laws!" Somehow, somewhere, someone in charge of actually enforcing the law has to realize we can't let them have it both ways.

They did at some point, years ago, quietly remove that clause from their company charter. There was no press release about it when it happened, but it was reported here on Slashdot at the time. IIRC, it was right around the same time they got caught illegally photographing private property and mapping wifi network SSIDs for their "Street View" data.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking though.

Not sure if this is low-quality astroturf, bad trolling or a failed attempt at sarcasm but that statement is objectively false.

Well, in the long run it'll probably be cheaper for the owners, but obviously they won't be passing those savings along to the consumers.

Seriously, this one gave me a chuckle: Combatting the scourge of illegal robocalls remains the FCC's top consumer protection priority... - Yea, right!

I also found this amusing: ...but not telcos that operate solely as wholesale or intermediate providers. - So, in other words, they're not even going to bother grading the ones actually doing this.

I give this plan 1 star.

It's been well documented that angels can't necessarily be trusted either.

I know you meant this rather flippantly, but I think you could be inadvertently on to something; an actual full disclosure of the entire contents of the Epstein files could indirectly do more to slow the growth of AI adoption than anything else that has been tried.

It occurs to me, after all the mod points spent silencing me, that this is clear evidence that I in fact thought out my talking point perfectly, and nothing could be more certain proof of that fact than the childish tantrum storm it generated in all of you and your cohorts, leading to them attempting to silence the truth I had just posted, as if it could silence the thought from their minds... but it didn't, and it won't. You're stuck with the harsh truth of this fact forever.