I watched it with a guy on my floor in college. First time for both of us. He was told before that that was the ending so we were both tearing up and he thought it was about to roll credits.

Rights and freedoms are not unlimited. Freedom of speech ends at things that put people in danger (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded space). Guns are available pursuant to a well regulated militia (or should be, but let’s not open that can of worms).

I’ll grant the proactive/reactive in a sort of way. If anyone (not only old people drink the fox news poison) starts up with some hyper racist shit, is restricting them not reactive to their emergent behavior? Would it be that big a stretch to codify the effects of propaganda as a sort of mental injury that needs treated? (Yes it would). Point is, at this point we’re splitting this hair rather fine and getting away from the important bits.

So the real way to handle the propaganda is to punish fox and their ilk for being wildly irresponsible and setting up racist fascist bullshit. Corporations are much easier to regulate than individuals (theoretically). They should be sued into the ground for all they’ve done, but we live in an oligarchy so that’s not happening anytime soon. This shower thought emerges because free market capitalism refuses to have any morals whatsoever and people are desperate to stop the big companies from hurting everyone. And the thing that’s easiest for everyone to see is the people they love start repeating horrible things and being helpless to pull them out of the echo chamber.

No, the shower thought isn’t good. It shouldn’t get that far. But right now, the only thing we can affect is the people next to us because the rich are never held accountable, so we’re stuck with bad and worse solutions.

Not the gotcha you think it is. And also, big difference between bans and regulation, let’s not conflate them.

We install breathalyzers in cars and revoke licenses when people refuse to act responsibly. It’s a common requirement of probation and parole to remain sober. We do what you (/I) describe often. In fact, it’s kinda the basis of operation for law at large: we limit the behavior of individuals to reduce harm to people. Be it saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick”. So yeah, I’m OK with what you described. If people cannot mange their substances, we can and do force them to stop with punitive measures.

See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Propaganda can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.

Now we have them exposed to content that is arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. voting). And this isn’t opinion stuff or debates. These are outright lies catered to them. There were no dogs being eaten in Springfield, and yet I could hear the old dudes at my gym discussing it while they walked the mezzanine. At what point does their right to play with their phone cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?

We can influence the behavior of our loved ones, we can’t meaningfully influence sociopathic corporations. While not feasible, it still feels like the best of a bunch of shitty options.

They are really soft. Don’t grab their tails.

I’ve been told it’s because they never get the satisfaction of catching the dot.

None of them. They don’t really work. AI image generators are trained against detectors (long story short). Any given detector only really kinda works on one model maybe.

Sure. It’s on Coursera

I enjoyed all the other stuff in the module and he did fine. Extra points for being online learning and being able to speed up the lecture to keep my ADHD happy. Just that one was pretty bluh.

Taking a network fundamentals class right now and the last part of the module was network security, which I thought would be interesting. I couldn’t focus on it at all. It’s weird when you realize that something you thought would be cool can’t hold your focus.

I love what appears to be a citation.

Don’t we all really?

I’ve got two for a pair of cats we adopted at the same time.

First was Stusy (pronounced stu-c). He was named after a typo. My partner and I were planning a move and I accidentally misspelled study. We looked at it and decided it was a good cat name, which it was. He was the smartest cat we ever had. He died a couple years ago too young from what the vet said was likely genetic kidney problems.

His brother, our scaredy cat, is Big O. At the cattery (our name for the local cat adoption place), he was the one that wanted nothing to do with us and so we clearly had to adopt him. Every time we pet him he vigorously cleaned that spot. I don’t remember what we were going to name him. The cattery named him Big O after the tire place where he was found. He was driven from one small town in Indiana to another, about 50 miles, before he was found in the engine compartment of someone’s car who stopped at Big O to check the meowing from the engine. He was Stusy’s best friend and while he’s still easy to startle, he lets us pet him in controlled conditions (usually us lying down and holding very still) and is the goofiest of his siblings when they’re playing.

Can confirm. Discovered that this morning.

These arguments are kind of dripping in slippery slope fallacy. That’s a potential outcome but by no means the only one. I’d hazard that’s a pretty worst case interpretation. I think your average person doesn’t evaluate themselves solely through the lens of economic value. Capitalismwould nudge people toward your slope, but I don’t think humans would totally cooperate with the effort.

Continue your bad faith, head in the sand vigil you dumb piece of shit.

No you aren’t

Most of the time when I get into an argument with someone on Lemmy (formerly Reddit) it was for the people who may read it more than the other person. The best outcome in those cases is civil disengagement, not changing their mind. But the goal is to reveal some faulty logic and dismiss some disinformation for random strangers.

Of course. If someone is using it blindly, I have no sympathy for them. Everyone who knows anything about data science (almost done with my masters now) screams to not trust it implicitly for a reason.