You can just watch the videos. It's made very clear where they sourced the information on the fraudsters.

This is why quite a few people followed in his footsteps and did the same thing. Went onto the relevant government website, pulled the data, and went to places. It's not like Shirley is the only one. He's just the one who started the trend.

I think they're arguing that they are the third thing, a message parlor.

Unions are a real-life strategy because they work. Divide-and-conquer is also a real-life strategy, because it works too.

Thus, I think the truth of your statement all depends on whether you look at this conflict between government and the the people, from the point of view of the attacker, vs the point of view of the defender.

Children do not have the maturity that is required for unfiltered access to the adult world

But they used to. In the 1980s, nobody dared to say in public, that 17-year-old me should not be allowed to visit public (or even university) (or even medical) libraries. (Or if someone did, they were still very obscure and unpopular, little more than a glimmer in the left's eye.)

If I may, could I narrow down which of these two things you think is best? First, there's exactly what you said above..

Kids have no right to use end-to-end encryption without parental consent

..but I've altered it:

Kids have a right to use end-to-end encryption unless denied by a parent

Did I make it better, or did I make it worse?

They do. That's why that Mormon guy could just grab a list of those organisations from the relevant government website and went to each location to show they're fake and exactly how much money they are defrauding the government on camera

I think what he meant to say, is that if Lewinsky had been a decade younger (12 instead of 22), then nothing would have happened.

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

You don't get to pick and choose what people post (with some obvious exceptions like fraud or csam), while also claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't.

Exactly, thanks for the excellent example. That's the kind of statement that nobody ever explains, but always presents as pure axiomatic dogma.

I do think that you might have revealed a clue in your unusual phrasing, though. You said "claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't" but how can there ever be any possibility of liability there? If your computer denies someone else's request to publish something, what liability is there to be immune from?

Yeah, what kind of idiot would think of using the internet to make money on porn?

Fun part? US government is actually pretty good at governing compared to alternatives.

Consider something like it's primary competitor of PRC, where bureaucracy is so hilariously bad that leadership has no idea what going on in the nation, and has to rely on things like electricity consumption numbers when they try to determine how much economic activity has taken place.

Unlikely, as this is a budgetary item. Managers can go to prison for fraud and be liable for damages if they failed to have the person working this role if it is indeed required to be filled for this task. It's a key part in how bureaucracy diffuses responsibility for mistakes, and one thing that bureaucrats tend to follow with religious fervor.

Far more likely scenario is one I list above.

This is the low IQ take. It requires not understanding the following:

1. How error rate works.
2. How error mitigation works.
3. How error correction works.
4. Who is at fault when #3 fails.

It's literally in the OP. It's not the AI that is at fault, it's the person who's job it was to sanity check to output. That person didn't do it.

"The disclaimer also noted that all generated content was verified by an officer and that generative AI was not used to make or recommend a decision."

But the "humans are better at this, AI sucks" crowd can't even read the OP. Imagine you hire someone like this to make complex decisions like one needed in the OP, by the tens of thousands.

The error rate would be hilarious.

are automakers responsible when someone breaks the speed limit and kills someone?

What's funny is that there's no such thing as "vicarious speeding" or "contributory reckless driving," but with copyright, there is. Analogously, sometimes the automaker is liable for drivers speeding!

But even so, Cox's behavior didn't fit contributory infringement.

The court just said T17 S501 is an ok law that they're not striking it down or anything like that, but it doesn't apply to this case!

A very good thing has happened.