651–660 of 692 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Took a bit of poking, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgDQ5z7bNPs
That sound quality did something weird to my brain, I was convinced sound was accidentally coming out my laptop speakers not my headphones. I'm not even on my laptop, and I still took my headphones off to check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Banks by law require substantial PII in order to even do business with you. And those laws are extremely invasive and should be repealed. It's offensive to have a law that de facto requires you to identify yourself in order to pay for a newspaper subscription or buy contraceptives over the internet. But that's not the issue in this case. It's that the bank knows your name and what you buy -- already very bad -- but…
Can't you pay cash for things like Visa gift cards and use them online?
Wow, I realized today this is pretty crazy. but turns out it's old news, as old as Dec 2025, though the support page was only linked to in Jan 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20251223014541/https://support.c... https://www.anthropic.com/news/protecting-well-being-of-user... The ToS already prohibited it when it showed up back in Feb 2024: https://web.archive.org/web/20240225205440/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"May contain" labeling seems like the better solution to this problem. This should be allowed for allergens that are present in the manufacturing or packing facility but not intended to be ingredients in the product.
Then there would never be a reason not to list "may contain sesame". Just like every product causes cancer in california.
Claude Executive: Damn, we hardly know who our users are, can't we just force them to say their full name or ban them? Claude Product Manager: No, that'll piss people off too much, and sadly we can't just ask for ID either... Claude Executive: There must be some way we can force people to link their government IDs with our platform so our analytics get better and more accurate? Claude Product Manager: We could limit…
From TFA: Yoti is an independently audited age verification provider for SOC2 compliance. Your selfie, document images, and any personal data are deleted by Yoti as soon as your age is checked. Anthropic never sees your ID or image; we receive only a pass/fail result and do not process or store any personal data from the verification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or a boolean value "yes this person is over 18" It would be detrimental to the cause, which is to collect everyone's ID.
Whilst this is OP's point, the reality is the majority of big tech companies have been treating user data like radioactive waste for 10+ years. Most user data is of minimal economic value, until you leak it, and then suddenly there are millions of euros of fines headed your way. Better to not hold the data in the first place.
There was a fair amount of scrambling to get GDPR/CCPA compliant, but even that was done largely with a prevailing "ah, this is a defensible thing to store, make sure you can annonymize it or scrub it if needed" vs "stop storing this."
Starting with the ones that are most popular in the US, "Big Tech" usually includes:
- Google - Gmail and Maps contain massive amount of PII, Photos contains all sorts of other sensitive stuff, and they have not treated those aspects of those products like radioactive waste
- Meta - Facebook has a real names required policy even. Not a lot more needs to be said there, I think.
- Amazon - Nothing I've seen about trying to move away from how they need your name/address/payment info and all. If anything, more and more geographic targeting and such.
- Microsoft - Now you need to tie your local Windows install to their cloud services, not moving away from collecting user info. Also moving towards subscriptions which means PII and payment info.
- Apple - cloud accounts + email + payments + subscriptions all here too. Getting into banking-type services, that's leaning into PII...
- Netflix - more and more PII (IP tracking and geolocation combined with things like email and name) to fight account sharing...
Which ones were running away from it, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too. I know my opinion is not popular, but I do not agree that it is the states responsibility to pick up the slack for bad parenting.
To be clear, I made no mention of the state or responsibility. All I said was a statement of moral values: that all children deserve the best opportunity we as a species can provide for them. There are many possible mechanisms and social institutions that can participate in that process. Parents are one, the state is another, but there are certainly many more.