It’s not, though. This is the first sentence in the article:
As Michael McGrady pointed out in his recent guest post for Techdirt, nearly 41 percent of Americans subject to age verification laws targeting porn and, of course, porn consumers.
It can be inferred, of course, from that line, but isn’t explicitly stated.
I’m not sure that widespread use of the platform is indicative of widespread love of the platform. People are entrenched, have sunk so much into it, and can’t find acceptable alternatives (cries in Fediverse). I’d guess that most people still using the platform do so out of necessity/ obligation while wishing for something better.
What an absurd, ignorant notion. Of course social media has a negative impact on developing minds, but forcing sites to display warnings would have zero positive impact. Browser extensions would immediately pop up to hide those warnings, and if anything, the presence of such warnings would increase kids’ use of social media, since the danger is something even adults had a hard time understanding and kids love to rebel against oppressive systems. The warnings would turn into memes.
The only answers to this problem are to break up and ban social media companies (not possible) or get parents to actually be parents and teach their kids about the pitfalls of social media.
You don’t. The “room for abuse” is exactly what disinformation peddlers want to have codified.
After all, with enough money, it’d be easy for bad actors to get their agents into “independent” information veracity panels.
The only way I can think of to reliably stop disinformation is to reduce or eliminate society’s dependence on money. Otherwise, money will always talk, and everybody has their price.
Like Did he do it on purpose?
At this point, I’m gonna say yes. Yes, he did do it on purpose. Why? The conspiracy theorist in me says it’s to push people into Meta’s Threads, building it up even more before it federates, in an attempt to kill the Fediverse like Google did with XMPP, because the Fediverse is the fastest growing bastion of corporate-influence-free speech on the Internet.
Or he’s just an idiot. 🤷♀️
I’m trying to avoid such negativity in my life, becoming a new, better me and all that, so I’ll just say this and exit the conversation:
One of the very first things Fauci did in the pandemic was lie about masks. Which part of that was the lie, though: the original statement or the follow-up “admitting to the noble lie”? Which one would have made him and his friends more money and better saved face?
Sure, I disagree with him regarding social issues, but how is questioning unscientific and inconsistent “health measures” and the proven liar who is their spokesperson right wing? To use the bird metaphor, is it flying upside down? Is that why things that are actually left wing (progressivism, skepticism, political accountability) called right wing and things that are actually right wing (authoritarianism, religious devotion to the state, feelings mattering more than reality) called left wing? Is it Opposite Day?
Spoken like someone who either didn’t read the article or has a deep misunderstanding of what AI training is.