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 think the distinction they are making is between technology that kills people, and technology that entertains people. If someone fitted actual weapons to a Doom engine, they'd probably object.

I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on /.; but here, use this in case you didn't know: https://xcancel.com/_lyraaaa_/...

Talk shows have been exempt from the equal time law right up until 2026. We didn't vote on it. Congress didn't change anything. Trump just decided they can only interview candidates that are nice to him.

I don't think that's how the law is actually supposed to work.

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'.

People with ethics don't typically have what it takes to become billionaires (i.e. a lack of ethics and a single minded desire to accumulate wealth at all costs.)

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.

Let's make the hopeful assumption that the superintelligent AIs will not "go rogue" in any way, but will correctly try to carry out their tasks as assigned by the people who designed and trained them.

Pretty much every major nation has military AIs, at this point. So the Chinese AIs are working hard on how to defeat the Americans, and the American AIs are working hard on how to defeat the Russians, and so on. In the final analysis, no matter where you live, there is probably an AI that has been explicitly tasked by its operators with figuring out the most effective ways to do you in. Not because they've "gone wrong", but because they're working as intended.