Addiction is neurological, not chemical. Addiction is the consequence of the rewards centre of the brain becoming dependent on stimulation and that can be from anything.
Do try to make an effort.
Doesn't have to be a credit card. A class III user digital certificate requires a verification firm be certain of a person's identity through multiple proofs. If an age verification service issued such a certificate, but anonymised the name the certificate was issued to to the user's selected screen name, you now have a digital ID that proves your age and optionally can be used for encryption purposes to ensure your account is only reachable from devices you authorise.
And those come with warnings, legal penalties on vendors who sell to known addicts or children, legal penalties for abusers, financial penalties to abusers, etc. There are cars which have their own breathalisers.
So, no, society has said that the responsibility is distributed. Which is correct.
It is possible to verify age to the same degree (or better) than any "age verification service" without any sort of privacy invasion.
A six digit UID is not one that could be remotely considered "old".
*goes off grumbling and looks for anyone he can shout at to get off his lawn.
It is legitimate for any service that constitutes a "common carrier" to be free of consequences for what it carries. But Meta do not claim to be a "common carrier", and that changes the nature of the playing field substantially. As soon as a service can inspect messages and moderate, it is no longer eligible to claim that it is not responsible for what it carries.
Your counter-argument holds some merit, but runs into two problems.
First, society deems any service that monitors to be liable. That may well be unreasonable at the volumes involved, but that's irrelevant. Meta chose to monitor, knowing that this made it liable in the eyes of society. There are, of course, good reasons for that - mostly, society is sick and twisted, and criminality is encouraged as a "good thing" and "sticking it to the man". This is a very good reason to monitor. But Meta chose to have an obscenely large customer base (it didn't need to), Meta chose to monitor (it is quite capable of parking itself in a country where this isn't an obligation), and Meta chose to make the service addictive (which is a good way of encouraging criminals onto the scene, as addicts are easy prey).
Second, Meta has known there's been a problem for a very long time (depression and suicides by human moderators is a serious problem Meta has been facing for many years at this point). Meta elected to sweep the problem under the rug and create the illusion of doing something by using AI. If a serivce knows there's a problem but does nothing, and in particular a very cheap form of nothing, then one must consider the possibility said service is not solving said problem because there's more money to be made by having the abusers there than by removing them.
Can one block every criminal action? Probably not, which means that that's the wrong problem to solve. Intelligent, rational, people do not try to solve actually impossible problems. Rather, they change the problems into ones that are quite easy. This is very standard lateral thinking and anyone over the age of 10 who has not been trained in lateral thinking should sue their school for incompetence.
Huh. I thought it was because the AI kept sending him out to go make it a cup of tea whilst it ran the company.
Retire it. It is a product with so many defects that it is not meaningfully salvageable.
A university drama department actually did this with "Mission to the Unknown". They recreated all of the sets and costumes, the works. It was an absolutely inspired project.
First up, before anything else, I am extremely glad you got the hope and encouragement you needed. Grief is rough, especially when you're going through it alone.
You are correct, so I'm somewhat careful with the AI dance. I will rarely discuss inner feelings with it, because that pushes the risk higher precisely because it is a mirror. Like the one in the Harry Potter novel, it will show your innermost desires. If you'd rather a different analogy, it's an amplifier, and if you talk for too long with it, the positive feedback loop does some interesting things with your mind that aren't terribly printable. And that's not always the greatest idea.
So I use it for wild speculation in science fiction/fantasy. Enough that it helps with the intellectual boredom, but not so much that I venture into believing it's real.
The idea that "normal" people are immune to delusions does somewhat fly in the face of research showing the incredible ease of inducing false memories, the research into mass hysteria (such as the Satanic Panic), and research into mob dynamics.
I freely admit that I'll sometimes simply sit and chat with AI, because there really aren't many humans who have the capacity to hold conversations any more, and that puts me in an extremely high-risk group. But, honestly, the choices these days are AI (and risk becoming psychotic), social media (and risk becoming suicidal or psychotic), or hang out with the same sort of people who have done so much damage over time (and risk being suicidal), or... well... really, that's about it.
There are no good options. The outcomes are bleak and, unless you are in a clique, that's how it is and how it has always been.
...is largely irrelevant to the question (he has worked in war zones and those tend to be, ummm, less respectful, shall we say....) and is prone to change its mind at the drop of a hat. There's sectors in the British political scene who have no problem with promoting acts of terror and murder against those they don't like and it's kinda unlikely that they'll hold a referendum on whether to murder a street artist if he posts something they find offensive.
(Depending on which part of the political scene you find yourself allied with, you'll doubtless point to other sectors, but it seems very very unlikely that anyone would subscribe to the notion that there aren't influential psychopaths in Britain, even if there's no agreement on who those are.)
Britain DOES enshrine a right to privacy, as Rupert Murdoch keeps discovering, and much of Europe mostly enshrines the same ideas (occasionally even more strongly). As for "public interest", I would LOVE to hear an explanation of precisely what public interest this serves. No, the public being interested is not the same thing.
It is certainly true you can't watch the whole of The Dalek's Masterplan (where you should really include Mission to the Unknown, making it a 13-parter). The full audio exists, the Target novelisation of it exists (it spans 2 novels!), but yeah, it would be nice if we could someday watch the whole story.
As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare
