First, It is up to the defense to pursue an argument. He is claiming no loss = no harm. He did NOT claim Caveat Emptor.

Second, Caveat Emptor only applies if no false statements were made. When you buy a car 'as is', and it does not start. That is your fault for not checking it. Similarly when you buy a mutual fund and do not bother to check that there is a 10% fee, you still have to pay the fee.

He sold a mutual fund, so the money has to go into the fund except for fees. He cannot take the money out of the fund and buy ANYTHING with that, that is fraud.

There is no law that lets a person lie in business. You cannot sell rat meat as steak, cannot sell a sled as a truck, and cannot take money from a mutual fund to contribute to a political campaign or buy real estate.

However, a bunch of billionaires think they can do anything with money they control, which is not true. That would be a crime.

Is there some reason they a) Picked male over female fly brains, and b) mentioned it?

Just seemed weird tome.

If I tell you I am going to invest your money in the stock market but instead go to Vegas and put it all on red, that is fraud. I owe penalties even if Red came up, I doubled the money and I paid you back plus 15%.

You do not get to claim "No one lost money", because otherwise, lots of people will do exactly what I just said.

I get to decide how to risk my money, not the lying shmuck that takes it.

It is not what we think you are going to do with the information.

Instead, we do NOT trust you. Not with the data, not with telling us which data you will keep, not with a microphone at all.

We do not want a microphone or a camera attached to anything that connects to the internet unless we need such devices for features we consider essential.

And the words "TV on" are not essential. The 'clicker' as grandma called it, works BETTER than your claimed feature.

I a surprised that Captcha still work against AI.
It appears to piss them off more than they piss me off.

That is, can I demand they stop the addictive algorithms used to attract my attention?

And does that AI chatbots include AI agents? Because I would like to forbid them from hacking my accounts?

There is the possibility that these incredibly arrogant braggarts that desperately want to convince the money men to fund their very expensive engineering projects are hiding essential information from us.

But that seems extremely out of character to me. The amount of money they beg for is so immense that I cannot see them leaving any 'paradigm shifting' investment idea out of the public knowledge base.

It would be like someone inventing FTL and not mentioning it when they try to fund their SpaceX competitor.

The devices use a definition of 'most likely' as 'most likely to be what people want'.

Your link is inane pedantry. Capitalism is the word we use to refer to a free market society. The origin of the word is irrelevant.

1) Nope. Companies to not get to decide the law. Nations get to do it. Yes, a moronic nation may leave it up to the contract, but in that case slavery would be legal. He who has the power of police makes the rules.

2) I do not use social media (unless you consider slashdot to be one). But others do, and people believe it has negative influences, mainly by spreading lies, propaganda, cults, etc. Government has the right to regulate it.

3) There is no 'basic human right of freedom of contract". You have elevated something you want to something much larger. We are not talking about marriage or friendship, those do have basic human rights, but they are NOT mere contracts and are protected by other rights. We are talking about Facebook, not marriage and if you do not see the difference, I pity you.. Trying to pretend that this is a larger principle is how scumbags convince people of lies.

Basically you are believe the equivalent of 'I have the 2nd amendment right to walk around with a bucket of acid you cannot blame me if occasionally some spills."

    NOPE.

Ai's core program is to discover answers people want. That's it's reward system. It is really a reward system programmed to pick the most likely answer from a billion things in it's data set.

AI does not think, at least not the way we think. It thinks more like a colony of bees, each trying to get the honey.

It does not do "If x than y, if b than x, therefore if b than y". It cannot even actually explain it's answers. Instead it treats a request to explain as a request to come up with a plausible explanation.

We make LLMs and similar software. We do not make a real AI, it will not try to kill us.

Now, if you are afraid it is going to build a bunch of pleasure drug factories and force feed us a mix of amphetamines and hallucigens, THAT would at least make sense. Because it is a theoretical worst case scenario of an AI attempting to please humans.

So, no.

The most unusual thing about this fraudulent business is that most of the fraud was committed against the 1%.

Theranos only sold about 1.5 million blood tests, for significantly less than $100 million (probably closer to $10 million), and paid about $5 million back. But she stole more than $700 million from investors.

Moreover, this money came from venture capital, she never went public. So all of it came from the 1`% wealthy, almost none from the less well off mutual fund investors.

You have fallen victim to several errors associated with Laissez-faire capitalism. I am a strong proponent of Capitalism but the issues you describe are inherently incorrect.

1) They do not need to prove it is harmful, capitalism routinely engages in preventative regulations. There are legal rules on things like the width of roads, medication use by dates, ingredients in food, etc. It is up to the business to show that their practices do no harm, not the other way around.

2) The client cannot easily vote with their presence/$$$ or presence because the social Media industries have no direct competition and MASSIVE problems 'transferring' accounts - problems the companies create.

3) If their business hinges on algorithms is irrelevant. No one is entitled to a profit. You must earn the profit by winning the competition within the rules the country creates. If one country handicaps the industry, so what? 90% of the profit will still be there - to be earned by the company that best competes within the rules the government . Sure, they may make 10% less compared to social media in other countries, but they will still make a profit and the loss is a small price to pay for the benefit of society.

This is another nail in the "I've done nothing wrong, let them look" argument.

The question is not whether you've done anything wrong, but whether the government has done anything wrong. When they refuse to disclose their methodology they are ALWAYS doing something wrong.

The entire point of a free society is that we do not have to nor can we trust the police. Time after time we see they are not significantly better than the general population. If we let them hide their process, it always devolves into an abusive process that targets innocent people and destroys their lives.

1) People are discouraged by SEEING the high price. hiding the high price is not 'discouraging'.

2) Hiding intentionally high prices is called GOUGING.

3) The best way to 'discourage' use it to not list it as public.

These people are scammers. You can charge high prices if you want but you have to prominently display them. Anything else makes you a gouging scam artist.