In before someone reports this - the person DID kill themselves, therefore this comment isn’t advocating self-harm, so much as “I wish the harm had ONLY been to themselves”
What’s frightening is you’re not in control of where a tattoo artist sources their ink. You can ask, but you won’t really know. I’ve been eager to get additional tattoos but this freaks me out.
If this thread (and others like it) have taught me aulnything is that facts be damned, people are opinionated either way. Nuance means nothing and it’s basically impossible to have a proper discussion when it comes to wedge issues or anything that can be used to divide people. Even if every study 100% said Ai generated csam always led to a reduction in actual child harm and reduced recidivism and never needed any actual real children to be used as training material, the comments would still pretty much look the same. If the studies showed the exact opposite, the comments would also be the same. Welcome to the internet. I hope you brought aspirin.
Fox Business - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Fox Business:
> MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
There are some differences here for sure, but I’m not sure if they would warrant claiming that one is dramatically better than the other.
CNN: The article claims that Mark stated that he bowed to government pressure to censor COVID-19 misinformation and comedic content like memes, refers to Biden publicly decrying such content in 2021, and then points out that he walked back those comments later, although the surgeon general continued to condemn COVID-19 misinformation. It also mentions that Zuckerberg was asked by the FBI about the possibility that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. It insinuates that this is why FaceBook censored the story when it was published by the New York Post. It notes that Zuckerberg recognizes now that the story is true, and wishes that he didn’t censor the story at the time. While his goal regarding the COVID-19 misinformation censorship was to help local governments make sure people were getting accurate information, he states that he won’t cooperate with such requests in the future. It wraps up pointing out that Republicans has celebrated this admission, as these actions are something they have criticized Zuckerberg for for years, and he testified on Capitol Hill in part to allay the fears of such lawmakers.
Fox Business: The article claims that Mark stated that he bowed to government pressure to censor COVID-19 misinformation and comedic content like memes, and mentions that he has been cooperative with previous congressional requests for documents and employee interviews related to such requests. It states that at the time, they did not want to censor the content, but ultimately decided to do so after hearing vocal frustration from the Biden administration regarding it. He regrets the decision to censor past content at the behest of the US government, and is pledging not to do so moving forward. It also mentions that a White House spokesperson heavily insinuated to Fox News that they encouraged FaceBook to censor certain types of content, based on how such content would affect the populace. It mentions that FaceBook was subpoenaed regarding such censorship, as well as that Mark also admitted to censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story after being told by the FBI that it could be Russian disinformation, keeping the story censored while it fact-checked the story for themselves. He now admits that the story was true, and regrets censoring the story at the time, pledging to no longer censor stories in this manner moving forward.
There’s nothing in the article but Meta PR! It’s not factual reporting, and Fox has done nothing to corroborate the claims and provide actual analysis.
Zuckerberg is vague about what he was asked to “censor” (humour and satire?) but also makes clear that Facebook rebuffed officials and all that happened was that those officials expressed frustration. What’s the actual allegation here? Zuck got hurt feelings?
Zuck refers to Facebook’s mission as “helping people connect in a safe and secure way” to try and downplay the Cambridge Analytics scandal the fact that they’re are an ad platform first and foremost. This is Meta prop.
Yeah, these hypocritical dipshits are the first to cheer on Palestinians getting deplatformed and harassed, and they want me to give a shit that they were occasionally prevented from spreading misinformation about medical realities in the middle of a pandemic? A middle finger the size of the sun isn’t big enough for these assholes.
I’m planning on having a “headless head unit” built for my next car so I can basically live off AUX port wired to speakers throughout the car, I hate wireless that much.
GDP is a great example of Goodhart’s Law. In the early 20th century it made sense to associate high GDP countries with a higher standard of living. So it seemed reasonable to prioritize GDP by discouraging savings and encouraging investment.
Now we’ve got a super high GDP, but real pay has stagnated and inequality has spiraled out of control.
So how do we inform everyone that we’ve bet the world economy on an incorrect assumption? There are a lot of people whose jobs depend on encouraging consumption, and even more whose egos depend on being right about it. People (ironically) went into debt to get degrees telling them high GDP was a good idea.
In Monday’s letter, Zuckerberg also wrote about throttling the Hunter Biden laptop story.
He wrote that the FBI warned his company about “a potential Russian disinformation operation” regarding the Biden family and Burisma, leading up to the 2020 election.
I wish that such government powers were equally opposed by both sides of the political aisle. New powers granted by one side usually end up being abused by the other.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.