181–190 of 335 posts
It is useful context for people who aren't American to know how ridiculous Josh Hawley is, and has always been. The current authoritarian chaos could lend some weight to the possibility that this becomes law, but it is still unlikely.
It is useful context for people who aren't American to know how ridiculous Josh Hawley is, and has always been. The current authoritarian chaos could lend some weight to the possibility that this becomes law, but it is still unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? Because as soon as the ban went into effect and phones started to ring Congress very quickly changed its tune. If it was genuinely a national security threat you absolutely would NOT bend after a few hundred angry constituency calls.
Congress didn’t change its tune. PAFACA is supported by 80% of legislators. It has more support than virtually any other legislation.
What party or politicians support individual freedom in this context? How could libertarians support banning an app?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for proving my point. Schwartz was offered 6 months in a minimum security prison, but he declined it because he specifically wanted a trial. Moreover that was for effectively DoSing JSTOR, a much more serious crime than some guy using a vpn to download an AI model. I don't think 6 months was justified, nor the string of crimes he was charged with, but OP's assertion that "You get less jail time for committing…
I think the issue under discussion is whether or not this kind of law is applied gently and with consideration to seriousness, or whether it tends to be used as a club to make an example of people. I think Swartz is seen as an example of it being used as a club to make an example of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure it’s even worth speculating on a bill that’s merely been proposed. This one sounds DOA. But yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent, mostly because it was based on speculative risks, not hard proof of existing behaviour (TikTok not engaging didn't help at all either). Regardless of the merits I too hope it doesn’t have a ripple effect. National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want…
The risk from TikTok is possibly not speculative at all. I think it’s quite likely the national security apparatus knows something and informed congressmen because they went from being opposed to it to being in favor of it in a short time.
For some stuff like this it's hard to imagine why they wouldn't be able to make it public. You need public support if you're going to ban an app that a lot of the public likes. Almost certainly IMO, no substantive evidence existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats how most propaganda works. Russia, for example, has been publicizing cases of extreme racism in the US for years to demoralize black people. [1] Hell this has been going on since WWII, when other countries saw how the US treated their black troops, and used it to damage loyalty. [2] Nothing works like the truth, if the US could just stop being so racist it'd be that much harder to divide us. It seems like that'…
US is a racist country though, at least at the government level. See how BLM and January 6th demonstrations got treated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there may very well be security concerns, other countries have handled this by simply banning the app on government devices (eg: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tiktok-banned-on-uk-gover... ). You needn't ban the app nationwide to address those concerns. What I believe is more likely is that, this isn't about national security or data privacy, which could be addressed far more effectively with subject-approp…
The concerns are about adversarial foreign governments being able to silently target messages to highly-influenced demographics en masse. I swear I have heard zero people opposed to the ban who seem to even be vaguely aware of that aspect which is the entire actual issue , and instead are completely confused and think it’s about spyware or hacking. Whether or not you agree with the ban, we need to actually be discuss…
Even when TikTok themselves tried to argue that the primary reason was to prevent foreign control over a recommendation algorithm, the Supreme Court said "nope, Congress's primary motive was the data collection."
It is useful context for people who aren't American to know how ridiculous Josh Hawley is, and has always been. The current authoritarian chaos could lend some weight to the possibility that this becomes law, but it is still unlikely.
On the one hand Hawley proposes a lot of things that don't ever get close to becoming law. On the other hand, we did ban TikTok (which is currently unavailable on the app stores because of the ban). I can think of few ways to more effectively destroy any US advantage in AI compared with the sheer efficiency of making it illegal to learn from what competing countries have achieved. From the article, it sounds like the…
Not sure it’s even worth speculating on a bill that’s merely been proposed. This one sounds DOA. But yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent, mostly because it was based on speculative risks, not hard proof of existing behaviour (TikTok not engaging didn't help at all either). Regardless of the merits I too hope it doesn’t have a ripple effect. National security is such a huge brush you could paint anything you want…
> yeah TikTok ban was a very bad precedent
The TikTok ban didn't set a precedent, it's following a general precedent. The most obvious precedent is Grindr [0]. What makes TikTok unusual is they refused to sell.
The precedent is also very old. There are usually laws regarding doing business with enemies during wartime, for example. That's the same basic idea: restriction on business/trade due to national security issues. The ones everyone knows about are US car companies and IBMs doing business with the Nazis. Typically, AFAIK, companies are required to divest to a subsidiary, which is what the US wanted ByteDance to do.
At least that's the right conceptual framing IMO, whether or not you think the ban was a bad idea.
CISA considers China the "most active and persistent cyber threat to the U.S. Government, private sector, and critical infrastructure networks" [1]. So while the US isn't technically in a cyber war with China, they basically are.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chine...
[1] https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a shell one-liner that downloads DeepSeek ?
If you have ollama installed and 404GB free space: ollama pull deepseek-r1:671b
git clone --mirror ... ?