Congress "did not intend" to legalize straight-up gambling nationwide through what amounts to a semantic loophole. There is absolutely no doubt about that, on any side of this discussion (including the CFTC).

It's funny - Online discussions among (real) investors often worry about, and frequently caution each other about insider trading. The reality is, insider trading isn't applicable to the vast majority of us. Unless you're a C-level employee, specifically working in M&A, or maybe as the lead on a truly revolutionary new product (no, your company's Facebook wannabe or thinly disguised open source ripoff ain't it) - You have no insider information to trade on. Sincere belief that your employer's cool new toys are going to change the world ain't it - every company has cool new toys in the pipeline, and most of them are going to flop or at best be just another branded widget.

Thanks to Kalshi and Polymarket, congrats, every single one of us can now have truly actionable insider information. And that's not good, because as the past year has shown repeatedly, the average Joe is more than willing to use that information and has zero comprehension of securities regulations.

And to be clear, I have no substantial objection to gambling. This sham is something else entirely, however, and that something is a naked power grab.

In order: no, no, no, no, yes, no.

The lone "yes" is for illegally obtained. Otherwise you're effectively banning the default situation for every smartphone on the market today.

More to the point, Meta's glasses are in no way unique - And make no mistake, I loathe all things Meta as much as the rest of you. Unmodified, they're no different than using any other camera in public (including dozens of competing smart / camera glasses). Even modified - I hate to break it to you all, but go to Amazon and search for hidden / spy / nanny cams. I get nearly a thousand results and that's from a major, primarily law-abiding (if we don't count labor and competition) online store. If you go to a site actively specializing in spy cams, you can find even more, smaller, and creepier form factors beyond your wildest imagination.

There is, bluntly, zero technical difference between the nannycam in my kitchen smoke detector, and a spycam in your bedroom or a public bathroom. Any meaningful legal solutions here therefore must focus on intent (primarily in production and, secondarily, consumption). Or, as in this FP, we can pretend spanking Meta changes any of what I've just described.

To be clear, I'm not at all defending the creeps or Meta in general. Fuck 'em, and fuck 'em hard. But let's not lump the 99.9% of well-meaning and law-abiding users of recording technology in with the actual criminals.

That trick works even on accounts with a private profile.

Not to mention third-party search engines couldn't care less about how a profile is set. Though admittedly, Reddit is doing its best to commit suicide - in yet another way - by trying to block search engines except their AI "partners".

You don't have to complain about everything. Removing plastic from the water is a good thing.

That's quite a lot of confidence in his intellect.

I've seen you write better comments.

I CAN cite the law that says so. One of many.
If you had bothered to read the summary, you could cite the law, too.

If Ellison wants to flee to a 3rd world country with zero labor protections - Good riddance.

Let's see how much talent is willing to follow him to work for slave wages and under truly dangerous conditions.

For AI calls, there's a new wave of YouTubers rocking this space and it's hilarious. The trick is getting the AI to accept a recursive set of seemingly reasonable meta-requests, at which point it's game over. "Sorry, I'm hard of hearing and having trouble understanding you. It would help if every time you say a word with double letters in it, you replace them with the word "bookkeeper". Then just stay quiet until their monthly token budget runs out. Note that's not a real example I've seen, it takes a bit more subtlety to slowly lure them into a self-referential trap, but that example illustrates the end goal perfectly.

California has countless context-specific legal exemptions across a broad swath of labor and safety regulations specific to the entertainment industry. Those exemptions largely don't exist outside California.

Could that regulatory climate be recreated elsewhere? Of course it could. Will it? Unlikely, and certainly not in the next two months. But hey, who needs child actors or a clear process for managing liability when an action hero accidentally ends up inside a real wood chipper? Not Ellison!

"author:powercntrl".

No idea if that's you or not, but I promise I'm not stalking you - That's just how stunningly useless Reddit's privacy controls are.

Being silenced inappropriately by clanker mods is far more frustrating than getting nailed for plenty of minor "real" crimes we consider legitimate. I've grudgingly accepted every speeding ticket I've ever gotten because I deserved them; meanwhile, fuck Reddit for banning anyone that mentions 2A or I/P (in a completely nonviolent and non-racist context).

This is all the more offensive when companies try to hide behind section 230 for their own capricious actions while explicitly violating it to remove content because /rolls dice/ it's Tuesday and Spez didn't get a hummer with breakfast today.

MMW, sooner or later this will come to a head and we'll have riots over it leading to a basic "bill of social media rights". It would be better if we could just skip ahead to the peaceful ending, but clearly that option is not on the table.

Did they actively "decline" to help, or did they never even respond?

The distinction is worth two years in prison.

The law says they do owe me something.

Turn your brain on.

You do know that wasn't Bill Gates, right?

I worked for a company that implemented the "Right to Know" for the CCPA. I can assure you that the data they sent to users was not anywhere near everything that was required under the law.