Which part of "people are afraid they might get fired if they don't go along with it" do you not get? You seem to think there is no problem with this, but if this is OK, where does it stop? Is it OK to have the highest sales punch the person with the lowest sales? Can they sexually assault them after they are tied to the chair (and why did they have to be tied to a chair if everyone was on board with this)? Where does this assault you think is OK turn into assault you think is not OK?

Except you are ignoring the fact this is your boss telling you this. Sure, maybe you can say you aren't comfortable with it and nothing happens. Or maybe you say you are uncomfortable with it and the boss looks for a reason to fire you because you "aren't a good fit with the culture". If a group of friends do this, it is good fun. When your boss does it, it is assault and workplace coercion.

What the hell is that? Is that a salesman in PC-speak?

"He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he? They had the phone, nothing forced the authorities to trust anything he said....they could have tried forensics like they'd do if they had a safe and tried a safecracker to get in if the suspect didn't want to give the combination."

This is the interesting part to me. He definitely could not be compelled to give them his password (legally). So the fact he offered them a password could be covered under freedom of speech. Depending on what was said, lying to the police can be a crime, especially when it could be considered obstruction of justice. Did they just ask for a PIN and he provided a PIN? Did he say the PIN would unlock the device when it would actually wipe it? It could also show he intended to destroy anything on the device, and while they can't prove there was anything incriminating on the device, it could still be considered evidence as it was data for an investigation. There are a lot of different paths I can see this going down.

His podcast Better Offline is squarely targeted at people who are very much online. Indeed his entire gig is the epitome of online living.

If Ed Zitron really felt better offline, he wouldn't be making a living off of a podcast and constant AI bashing.

Not that I necessarily disagree with him though... It's just that the messenger doesn't really befit the message.

No, they won't object to the labels. They will claim that forcing them to put the actual nutritional information is the violation of their free speech. I mean, if they can lie about recycling, why can't they lie about the nutritional content or the ingredients?

If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.

Lol

This is the blandest, most watered-down way to say "lost their job" yet. Quite nauseating.

I fully understand what they are going for. And I also think it would be a great idea. The issue I see is, who decides what is "trusted". The US is showing that it takes 1 asshole to get power to completely upend everything. When UK Trump gets elected and decides the only "trusted" news sites are the ones that report nice things about him, how do you stop that? At this point, everything has to consider what happens if a bad actor gets power because we can see how bad it can be.

> Meta doesn't really know how to do anything else with any skill.

They don't know how to do Facebook very well either: it's been pretty much stagnant and enshittified to death for the past 22 years, and it feels like a forum for greying people whose greying friends haven't bothered to move on either, or to get the date of the next annual meeting of the bridge club.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

one of those companies whose sole purpose seems to be annoying you by slapping their name as a watermark on a generic image you'd like to use in a meme, and force to spend 10 seconds finding somewhere else because you were never going to pay a stupid company to remove their mark on a bad picture you can find everywhere.

I wonder how those companies still exist, let alone make any money.

Anyway, the modern way to use copyrighted photos for free is to ask stable diffusion to regenerate it, because the AI companies have done all the data stealing for you and repackaged the stolen data into "models" you can use for free.

Yeah, this is a load of shit meant to justify hate speech. You can't claim hate speech is OK based on the context. If I say "all white people should die" that is hate speech. It doesn't matter if my family was killed by a white person, it is still hate speech. You example in BC (which I assume is about Barry Neufeld) leaves out a huge amount of the same context you want to talk about. For example, you leave out him associating queer people with child abuse, claiming it was only because he didn't use the proper pronouns.

If that was happening, you might have a case (not a good one, but a case). But you notice what is missing from the article? Reporting that the amount of arrests for threats also went up. The only time they care about threats are when it is by someone they don't like and then they don't care if they are legit or not (see the James Comey prosecution for the "threat" of "86 47"). This is just normalizing threats and hate, not some secret plan to arrest threat makers.