To be clear, harassment and defamation are crimes in the US as well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can harm people with your speech with impunity. It’s a prohibition on the government from meddling with political speech, especially that of people who are detractors of the government.
I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it’s own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)
So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don’t have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.
And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.
Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.
And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.
It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.
I can see both sides on this one I think?
Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?
If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?
Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.
Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.
And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.
A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.
But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.
And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.
And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.
I’m well aware of the existence of alternatives. But you must agree that what is achievable with an implant far outstrips the current alternatives?
Maybe someday, but that’s not the point of the tech as it stands. It’s accessibility.
They guy who it failed in (Noland Arbaugh) is a full on quadriplegic. The ability to use a computer in a semi-normal way is absolutely beyond life changing for him.
I was just about to say, isn’t this just OpenStack?
I don’t even think OpenStack is needlessly complicated.
Yes, it is complicated, but who thinks operating a cloud environment the equivalent of AWS is trivial?
Sceptre makes modern, affordable dumb TVs.
What clear rule did she violate though? Like, Grammerly isn’t an AI tool. It’s a glorified spell check. And several of her previous professors had recommended it’s use.
What she did “wrong” was write something that TurnItIn decided to flag as AI generated, which it’s incredibly far from 100% accurate at.
Like, what should she have done differently?
As I get older, I’ve realized that places like here and reddit would be wildly better if everyone younger than me wasn’t allowed to use it, lol. :P
Wait, hold on. Are you arguing that, in the long run, it’s cheaper to pay rent and maintenance on facilities and personnel to caretake reams of paper than to have a bunch of PDFs on Google Drive?
Paper isn’t some magical substance that doesn’t need any maintenance ever. Silverfish, fire, water, and a million other things need to be actively guarded against to keep these records usable.
On the other hand, PDF has been around since 1992, and it hardly seems to be going anywhere. And even if it does, running a “PDF to NewStandard” converter on the files every 30 years or so seems unlikely to cost as much as 30yrs of rent on a physical building. And that holds true even over the course of 1000yrs. Rent’s not cheap, and neither are people who maintain physical records.
Like, I’m not advocating for destroying the physical documents, but the idea that it’s even remotely close to being cheaper to keep them as paper vs digitizing is an absolute fantasy.
Well, not every metric. I bet the computers generated them way faster, lol. :P