It's mandatory for them because there is so much AI slop now it's starting to infect their data sets. Facebook doesn't give a shit about the quality of their advertising because no matter how many bots there are people keep buying the ads. But the advertising is only about 1/3 of their revenue 2/3 of it is selling data to brokers and law enforcement.

There is so much AI slop and it is so sophisticated it's becoming difficult to keep it out of their data sets and that's gradually making the data sets useless.

So they are going to force complete tracking under the guise of think of the children so that they and they alone know who is a bot and who isn't. As an added bonus is also means that they can effectively and easily figure out who is a person and use their data to train llms.

AI slop is basically an existential threat to these companies because at the end of the day they do need to know who is and isn't a real user and they need to be able to do that quickly and effectively. So mandatory age verification is the way to go.

Your privacy is completely irrelevant. And frankly I think it's irrelevant to most people here. Everyone will talk about how important privacy and internet and anonymity is but when it comes time to vote a dozen other issues come first often pretty stupid ones.

So Mark Zuckerberg can go around buying up laws and there really isn't anything we can do about it because voters prioritize other things.

Taxes made them successful. We used to have super high taxes for the wealthy and corporations. This created a use it or lose it mentality among businesses because they couldn't just pocket all the money themselves because it would be taxed up the wazoo at a certain point. There were ways around taxes even back then but they weren't nearly as effective as they are now where you have billionaires paying an effective tax rate of 0%

Also stock BuyBacks used to be illegal. Stock BuyBacks mean that companies don't invest anymore they hold on to their cash so that they can do BuyBacks and pump the stock during downturn. This is exactly why stock BuyBacks were illegal for so long.

I don't think folks realize how much of a role public policy plays in their daily lives or the myriad of knock-on effects from those kind of policies. There's an idea of a chesterton's fence, which is a fence that you don't pull down unless you know damn well why it was put up. High taxes and Wall Street regulation were a classic chesterton's fence.

GitHub apparently has dropped below 90% uptime and it's very likely because they are using AI slop to write important code and it doesn't work.

It's a huge problem but there isn't really a solution.

I’d argue that slavery wasn’t “legal because nobody banned it.” It was legal because there were explicit laws that created, defined, and enforced the institution.

There were statutes specifying who could be held as slaves, rules that the child of an enslaved woman was automatically a slave, procedures for manumission, regulations on how slaves could be bought, sold, punished, or inherited, and laws requiring that escaped slaves be returned. That’s not a legal vacuum, that’s a full legal framework.

It’s similar to how segregation laws later forced discrimination on people who might not have engaged in it otherwise. The state wasn’t passively allowing something; it was actively mandating and structuring it.

Slavery existed because the law built and maintained it, not because the law failed to forbid it.

I remember those days where it would warn if there was any scripting at all, rather than look for dangerous commands first.
Just as a thought, not bothering if the script cannot reach outside of the document itself. Functions that access other files or documents, email functionality, and such triggering the warning instead would have been more effective.

It's not a question of if it's going to be mandated it's when. And we will suck it down because we are nerds and nerds lean towards the libertarian side and it's the libertarian types that are pushing this from the top down.

Specifically Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook wanted because AI slop is starting to infest his data sources that he sells for money.

All this age verification bullshit is just Zuckerberg and other billionaire types getting out ahead of the AI slop apocalypse so that they can continue to have access to training data that can be tracked back to real humans, so that they can slightly improve the value of their advertising products, and most importantly of all so that they can continue to monitor all of us and gather all our sweet sweet data without the data set rendered completely worthless by slop.

We will let them do it because folks are easily distracted by other issues when it comes to fighting for privacy or other consumer rights.

The 900 though is for the higher end option. Still you're looking at $600 for a PS5 with a disk drive now. If I'm comparing that to something like the Sega Genesis or super Nintendo that is more than either of them launched at adjusted for inflation let alone what they cost at this point.

It bugs me cuz it kind of feels like people who aren't well off are getting cut off from what used to be one of the few affordable hobbies. Yeah you could play Old hardware but it's hard to find players on old games... And playing newer games as part of the hobby.

And of course you have to know about those games. It's hard to be a dumb kid and we were all a dumb kid at some point and you're not necessarily going to be able to find that cool game that a bunch of people are playing...

They did it overnight. It was done across all retailers so it was coordinated. I doubt you can find a retailer that isn't selling it for the increased price now even though obviously it's the same old stock that you could have bought last week for $100 or $150 cheaper.

It's amazing how quick they can reprice things to screw us consumers over.

We would have to re-arrange society to ease many of the stressors in life. I predict we'll be needing those drugs for a while.

Criminalizing drugs completely changes us politics. We learned a long time ago that the reason drugs were criminalized was so that the right wing could go after the left wing because statistically working class people are more likely to take drugs. Nixon's people came out and just admitted it because they felt guilty. The entire purpose of the drug war was and always is political.

Because of that you are never going to see things like this used properly and legalized which is a shame because psychedelics have been shown repeatedly to be a game changer for people with post traumatic stress disorder. And there are a lot of people with PTSD beyond soldiers.

The catch is that for it to work you need to do it under Dr supervision generally. You need someone there who can carefully guide you through the process. Just dropping a tab of acid isn't usually going to work. So by criminalizing it an entire group of people whose lives could be transformed or just left out in the cold. But compared to the billions and billions of dollars that can be made using the drug war to win elections that's a small price to pay.

And of course because we have been conditioned to view talk about politics as dirty anytime you bring this up you're guaranteed to piss everybody off. It is no coincidence that you are conditioned not to talk about your salary with your coworkers or your political beliefs.

Fun fact the reason rural towns tend to be right wing is because there is usually one extremely wealthy landowner who runs the show and if you deviate slightly from orthodoxy then he's the only employer in town and he runs the church and everything else and you're basically persona non grata.

I bring it up because it's another way that the discussion and debate in our country is locked down to the benefit of people who do not have your best interests at heart

For a company that blows through 60 billion dollars a year like it's nothing... And this is the pilot. Meaning that a lot of people are coming in buying ads because they do not yet know how effective those ads will be.

We got a preview of how effective the advertisements are. Amazon and a couple other companies tried to use AI chatbots to do website sales. The results were basically a disaster with a 30 to 40% drop in conversion rate compared to the same product on the website. In other words people were 30 to 40% less likely to buy from a chat bot then from just going to a website.

Internet advertising does not work. The only reason it continues to survive is scams and large advertising firms convincing people to buy into it even though it's completely ineffective. It kind of sort of can work for branding exercises like letting you know that the Ford motor company exists but that doesn't sell specific products it just creates a rough vibe.

What does work is influencers. That's where the real money is to be made. And I could see AI influencers taking over from real humans to some extent but the reason influencers work is the parasocial relationships so that's going to be tough to maintain when people find out it's not a real person which is going to happen sooner or later.

If AI ever gets to the point where it can outperform human beings at finding defects then there's going to be a major issue with world powers.

That's because right now if you really want to hack somebody's data you can do it. There is a company out of Israel that will sell you software if you have enough money had enough connections and that software can break into just about any phone in existence. If they can break into the phones they can get past most encryption mechanisms.

So the question is what happens if intelligence agencies and law enforcement can no longer get data when they really want it.

I'm not so naive to think that is going to be a glorious time of freedom.

Facebook for example is facing an existential crisis from AI slop. There is so much slop and it is so hard to tell from the real content they are having a hard time getting data they can sell. Advertising rates are also at risk although it's less of an issue because as it stands advertising on Facebook is pretty useless and largely done out of habit. But the risk of slop overwhelming their data collection is a much bigger deal.

I bring it up because Facebook didn't just roll over and die. They are going around the world buying off politicians and getting laws passed requiring age verification that will in turn let them identify real users from bots so that they can continue to collect your data and sell it to their advertisers and governments and whatnot.

My point being that when a large powerful group faces a problem they solve it. And when somebody with that much money in power has a problem and they solve it it's usually to your detriment and mine.

What I would expect is that we are going to lose more freedoms. And any attempt to save those freedoms will fail because at the end of the day we would have to vote for politicians that would protect those freedoms and I think the 2024 elections proved that it's pretty easy to get people to do the opposite if you dangle cheap eggs in front of them...

Based on the cost of products from China vs the price of products made in China but sold by non-Chinese companies, I'd say the price well more than covers the cost of everything for practically any product where they also choose to display ads.

They just want more, more, always more.

This is that super bowl ad bullshit. The Epstein class wants all of us to accept and enjoy a complete surveillance State and 24/7 tracking of every single thought and action that goes on in our lives.

So they were looking for ways to package that because obviously having cameras and tracking on you 24/7 isn't a good thing.

They have landed on pets and protecting children. Honestly it's working reasonably well. People keep setting up their own surveillance networks and handing them over to the Epstein class. Meta and Planitir have been going around buying laws to require age verification and operating systems and the internet. This is especially important because AI slop is becoming endemic and it's becoming hard for the platforms to tell the difference between the AI slop and the actual human content and if your job is to sell user data and advertisements you can't really do that if your data set is full of bots.

It's also possible that Dolby is twisting logic into a pretzel in order to make this claim. It wouldn't be the first far-fetched theory of infringement to go through court.