Block the communities hosting them.

“this is not the technology of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, or Rheinmetall”.

Well, it sure seems to be getting good results, and for a minuscule fraction of the cost, so maybe Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Rheinmetall should catch the fuck up.

God supports atrocities as long as they’re perpetrated by followers, rather than against them.

Parents giving their children these devices, observing excessive attachment, and not cutting them off bear considerable responsibility.

While I do agree that parents should bear the brunt of the responsibility here, you must realize that kids are resourceful and no amount of parental oversight will stop a determined kid from accessing this content. Parents aren’t in their presence 24/7, and just like a kid whose parents deny them candy can find plenty of ways to obtain it without their parents knowing, the same is true for social media use. It’s the old adage that the more you tighten your grip, the more slips through your fingers.

liberty

You keep using that word, but this isn’t really about personal freedoms at all. It’s about companies that saw that their product was causing harm, and actively made the decision to continue promoting that harmful product in the name of profits. Their products were specifically engineered to cause these outcomes, and you’re defending their right to do that. Do you just propose we allow companies to do whatever they want in the name of profits, no matter the cost to society? If not, where do you draw the line? How much harm do they have to knowingly cause before you think it’s too much?

When risks are open & obvious, such as the overconsumption of certain foods & legal substances, that’s generally viewed as a matter of personal choice rather than unreasonably dangerous product defect.

We restrict alcohol and cigarette use by underage people, too, actually, because their effects are known to be harmful, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Nobody’s talking about making social media use illegal for adults.

Basically, I think you’re arguing against social media restrictions for kids which is fine but that’s a completely different discussion. It’s related, but it’s not what this article is about - this article is about holding corporations responsible for bad behavior. If that isn’t what you want to discuss, why are you here?

However, even supposing such features defectively make the system unreasonably dangerous in a reasonably foreseeable manner, that only demands that service providers provide fair warning. Once duty to warn has been met, users are reasonably aware of risks and responsibility shifts to risk-takers or parents who give children access despite reasonably knowing the risk.

Okay, I think you’re just not understanding the situation here. Meta did research on the effects of social media. They found that it was harmful. Even after determining that, they continued to promote it as not harmful. Zuckerberg even testified that that evidence that social media was harmful didn’t exist, after they had found evidence that it was. This all came to light because of whistleblower testimony. So even if we accept your premise here, that duty to inform was not met and that’s part of what’s at issue here.

To add to that, though, if the dead person’s estate isn’t enough to cover the back rent, the landlord has no recourse. They can’t go after (for example) the deceased person’s family for the money, unless those family members were specifically cosigners on the lease. (At least in the US; this could vary in other countries, but that’s not an area I’m knowledgeable about.)

Addictive Personality is a proposed set of traits that makes sufferers more vulnerable to developing addictive behaviors, including things like gambling or social media. Does it help to frame it in a different light for you if you think of it as those companies exploiting vulnerable peoples’ disorders to extract money from them?

Telling those people to just have self control is like telling someone with depression to just stop being sad.

It’s like if someone had a forum where insurrectionists were discussing how to build bombs and where they were going to use them, and the owners had an internal meeting where they said, “Hey, we’re hosting some pretty awful people, should we maybe report them or shut this down?” and the answer was, “Nah, they’re paying users, and we want their money.”

Pretty sure Section 230 wouldn’t protect them, either.

I wouldn’t even care if they hadn’t used the Marathon IP for it. What the fuck was the point of bringing that back for this? It’s not like it has name recognition against anyone but like age 35+ folks who happened to play the originals in 1995, or the remakes on XBox Live Arcade, and those people are definitely not the market for a live-service extraction shooter, so what was the point here, other than to irritate people who would have enjoyed a proper reboot of the original trilogy?

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The “addictive design” does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.

This feels like an awful argument to make. It’s not the presence of those things that make Meta and co so shit, it’s the fact that they provably understood the risks and the effects that their design was having, knew that it was harming people, and continued to do it anyway. I don’t care if we’re talking about a little forum run by a Grandma and Grandpa talking about their jam recipes; if they know that they’re causing harm and don’t change their behavior, they should be liable.

No wonder why they have a higher rate of obesity

To be fair, this isn’t just about portion sizes, it’s about what’s in those portions. We have a ton of heavily processed, wildly unhealthy food options, and they’re all the budget friendly ones. Getting things like fresh fruits and vegetables is much more expensive than it should be, so we have this weird situation where it’s possible for someone to be both food insecure and also overweight, just because the food they do get is so unhealthy and fattening.

I don’t know the wording on the declaration itself, but it’s distinctly possible that the US prison system is in direct opposition to it.

Starfox sure activates my brain’s pleasure centre.

Who are you writing it for? Are you writing it for other people, or because you enjoy it and want to do it? If the former, I’m sure there’s people out there who would read it, even if your friend is a bit of a dick. If the latter, what does it even matter what other people think? If you’re enjoying writing it, it’s time well spent regardless of what happens afterwards.

Really hope Venezuela tells us the US to get fucked, after all the bullshit the US put them through in the past year.

The rest of the conversation, though, was about a (mostly) exclusively American thing, relating to lobbying and legislation against Wikipedia and IA. I’ve got no problem with shitting on the US for things we’re actually doing, but saying the public doesn’t support Wikipedia when we’re actually the #1 supporter worldwide of Wikipedia feels kind of disingenuous.

sane Americans largely take Wikipedia for granted

North America is Wikipedia’s largest funding source by a factor of more than 2. I’m not sure why you’re calling Americans out here.

Are you supposing that IA is better known in other countries than in the US? Are you basing that on anything?

Watership Down… The old one, not the newer remake. Just so much fucked up imagery and awful themes in that. Legitimately gave me nightmares as a kid.

Not really a kid’s movie, but I remember seeing Darkman on TV when I was pretty young and having the image of his horribly burned, disfigured face burned into my memory.

Didn’t even try to mask the AI in that image, huh?

No, I’m aiming to remove the objection. This seems like the easiest way to accomplish that.

I support giving everyone extra days off ‘just because’, actually, but that’s beside the point. The problem as stated in the article was that employers perceive disproportionate days off as a reason to not hire women; the obvious solution is to just remove that from the equation. I wasn’t aware that giving men days off somehow harms women, but apparently I just don’t understand.