I mean… It wouldn’t even be the first time, so 🤷‍♂️

That’s the beauty of it! You can’t! AI can’t commit malpractice, because you have to prove professional negligence! /s

So does requiring all users to phone you ahead of time to get a temporary password that’s only alive for 20 minutes… But that’s also not done because it’s…stupid.

There are dozens of tools and methods (like jumpboxes) which facilitate the authorization and usage of currently available and time tested tools for usage with environments without reinventing the wheel. Stepping away from the unix philosophy is heresy of the highest degree.

It’s not a problem with the tool, only the plumber.

Huffman needs exactly 0 help to run reddit into the ground. He’s been doin’ it for years.

I don’t understand the obsession in integrating everything with OID services, like Google. People already complain all the time about Google watch-dogging them and then integrate every single service imaginable with their Google account. Shit is just weird to me.

Lol extremists. Get the fuck outta here with this shit.

Hahahahaha nice

This is precisely why I have all contacts saved very specifically in my phone; Company - Fname Lname (position)

Looks like;

US Government - Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense)

Gives you all the information you could need. Even drunk I’ve never accidentally messaged someone else, or added some rando to the group chat before we bombed the Houthis.

More like, if you sell a gun and follow the law, you’re not responsible if the person you sold the gun to murders someone…

They’re an ad agency. They sell ad space. If “anti-abortion” people buy ads, that doesn’t mean that Google is pushing anti-abortion. How anyone could think like that is frankly the epitome of stupidity.

They’re an open platform. Anyone can buy ad time on their platforms. It has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with people buying ad time.

If you’re going to be pissed, then be pissed. Just be right.

Because a lot of the reason that child sexual abuse is so horrific and wrong has to do with their developmental age and understanding of what’s happening and ability to give consent.

And not once in any of my replies do I denounce this, refute it, or even disagree with it. You an I both agree that violence, including sexual violence, against children or the developmentally disabled is repugnant to a degree that I don’t even possess the powers of speech to adequately express. But that’s not what’s being discussed here. What is being discussed here is whether or not thought crimes should be illegal–which is what this is. It’s a thought crime.

I don’t agree with people using AI to create porn of those with developmental disabilities. I’m not advocating for it or defending it. But in our system of law there has to be a victim of a crime for an action to be called a crime. Since there is no victim–as AI “influencers” aren’t protected by law as they’re not real–you can’t charge these people with crimes. That’s an objective truth, and its important that things stay that way because it won’t be long that we’re prosecuting XXX for XXX because of XXX, because XXX is President and XXX doesn’t like XXX behavior.

True, but someone with a developmental disability in which they mentally remain very much a child for their whole life is clearly a different thing.

Thinking and behaving like a child because of a developmental disability is the not same as being a child. Even if a person has the mentality of a child they’re still an adult. They have adult rights, and adult responsibilities. The mentally infirm deserve more protections under the law (and they get them) than the average person, but you can’t charge people who crime against those who have developmental disabilities as if they crimed against children. That’s pure and unadulterated insanity and denies reality.

You seem to be stuck in the idea that those who think like children should be protected like children. And I don’t necessarily disagree with that at face value. But it’s more nuanced than you’re giving it credit for and not something you can do in our legal system because even criminals have rights, and deserve to be charged with crimes appropriate to their crime–as fucked up as that sounds, its how our legal system works. Attempting rape is not the same crime as rape. Even if said criminal had every intention to actually rape, if they didn’t actually rape then you can’t charge them with rape.

In the same fashion, you can’t charge a person who sexually assaults a person with a disability with child based sex crime simply because the person who was assaulted has the mind of a child. That’s not appropriate and infringes the rights of the criminal. We already have separate laws which address the disparity in the mentally ill’s inability to protect themselves within our laws–and these laws are very important. A sex crime against a woman, and a developmentally challenged woman are already two different crimes, the latter of which can be significantly worse because of the victims inability to protect themselves.

The extreme right are happily using free speech as a shield to do that literally right now and we are literally in a constitutional crisis because of it.

They’re trying. Yes. But we still have the constitution. They can try all they want, that doesn’t mean they’ll be successful. They’ve been trying for decades and decades to make being gay illegal, and they haven’t gotten anywhere with it. None of this is new. The issue would be giving them precedence to go off of. If they have that, they can make the case that you actually can make being gay illegal–and you’re going to want to avoid that at all costs.

In the US and Australia, it actually is illegal to create art of children in sexual situations.

I very specifically took the time to include “grown adults doing grown adult things.” Why you chose to overlook that, and post anyways as if I didn’t explicitly exclude anything involving children is beyond my understanding.

Freedom is such a vague word, we shouldn’t use this word if we want to be precise about what we mean by it.

I cannot more strongly disagree as it’s very explicitly defined. Libre software is not the same as open source software even though the non-initiated equate the two.

However, I do not think we should use the term open source.

This is why most people use the term FOSS now; free and open source software. Then of course there’s Libre.

While I do wholeheartedly agree that promoting fetishization of marginalized people who are vulnerable is despicable, evil, and just about any other pejorative you can think of–but it’s a thought crime.

It’s not illegal to create digital art (even the disgusting kind) which depicts fictitious grown adults doing grown adult things.

I would argue that if any such subclass of degenerate could exist, then they already do exist. You’re not creating this subclass and any claim of expansion of such a subclass would be anecdotal at best and bullshit at worst. If they’re out there they’re out there. It’s a chicken and egg problem. Which came first, the pornography or the degenerate?

We have a constitutionally protected right in this country to freedom of expression and that right cannot be infringed simply because you believe that it could lead to more people being taken advantage of. The right to that expression must be protected regardless of how repugnant you believe the resultant actions are. As history is shown any number of times the restriction of any right is a slippery slope in any capacity. There’s a quote by Noam Chomsky which is particularly relevant here;

If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

As a society we need to strongly condemn these actions, and we need to ensure that the most vulnerable among us are absolutely protected. But as soon as you start making thought crimes illegal you open the door to any number of machinations. How long before the extreme right use that precedent to start prosecuting individuals for other thought crimes? I would bet my last dollar it wouldn’t take very long…

I don’t disagree but the idea being that the law is made by supposedly moral men and that law is at least moral within the perspective and context of society at the time.

Then die. I don’t know what else to tell you.

If your business model is predicated on breaking the law then you don’t deserve to exist.

You can’t send people to prison for 5 years and charge them $100,000 for downloading a movie and then turn around and let big business do it for free because they need to “train their AI model” and call one of thief but not the other…

So they do this for all apps. Every single app that is in the Android ecosystem. But in your mind they’re specifically targeting firefox with this to make people “scared” huh?

Must be nice to live in denial.

So you’re advocating that Google shouldn’t broadcast that firefox is broadcasting your current location? Even though they do this for every other app available on Android, you’re saying they shouldn’t do this for firefox?

Why?

I was a super early adopter for firefox. I started using it back in 2005-2006. I’m pretty sure it was still in beta when I started using it.

Over the past 20 years I’ve watched while firefox users have formed a goddamn cult around a software. It’s insane to me, especially because I’m seeing exactly the same things from Mozilla that I was seeing from Microsoft (and later Google) at the time I decided to switch from IE to firefox to begin with…

Firefox isn’t special. It’s falling for all the cloud-based privacy invasive enshittification that Chrome has so far. It’s just getting there slower.

So cool your jets. Especially considering uBlock Origin Lite is uBlock Origin. It’s just compatible with the Manifest V3 standard.