31–40 of 84 posts
Let me say as an international PhD student- I have marched for the freedom of Palestinian people, talk about it, and I won’t allow this Big Brother tactic influence my decision one bit going forward. The US govt can do whatever it damn pleases.
[flagged]
How can you believe there's any good faith in this?
Surely this will not have any unforeseen consequences whatsoever
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have no problem with US holocaust deniers.
They certainly have no problem sending billions of tax payer money and sign missiles to m*rder children. I think the point here is to prime the public for this discriminatory use of AI. Today it's "bad hamas", tomorrow it can be whatever the current government deems "bad". And by then, it'll be too late.
Let me say as an international PhD student- I have marched for the freedom of Palestinian people, talk about it, and I won’t allow this Big Brother tactic influence my decision one bit going forward. The US govt can do whatever it damn pleases.
[flagged]
Of course not. But is this view, that these Baathists should have remained in place support of them? In some way it must be, since it prefers them over something, right?
Even so, this is purely motivated by that I believe that their alternatives would slaughter or permit slaughter of all the minorities, in particular Christians, which is what happened at least in Iraq, so in practice it means that my view, rather than supporting any of these guys per se leads to opposition only to destabilizing these countries or other attempts to root them out.
So I suppose it depends on how you define support.
> We see people marching at our universities and in the streets of our country ... calling for Intifada, celebrating what Hamas has done ... Those people need to go," Rubio stated.
No one want terrorist apologist in their country, but I think everyone can see how it's the cursor position that matters. Now you ban terrorist apologist, tomorrow you ban someone who criticized Israel and it's human rights violation.
I see no difference between the Hamas and an Israeli fanatic who claim the Arabians have no right to live on the sacred soil that God gave them 2 thousand year ago, legitimizing the bombardment of civilians, forced deportations of gaza citizens, illegal Israeli settlements and so on.
Yet this is only about one side.
I fear this is instead going to be used as a tool to shut freedom of talk when it's not supportive of Israel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the point is that the trait "supporting Hamas" will be judged by AI.
The article is pretty scant on details in terms of how the judgment would be made but using AI to process for an initial review followed by a final human review seems like a slam dunk choice imo
Exactly what will the humans review?
Let me say as an international PhD student- I have marched for the freedom of Palestinian people, talk about it, and I won’t allow this Big Brother tactic influence my decision one bit going forward. The US govt can do whatever it damn pleases.
Sure it can, it's the US.
Let me say as an international PhD student- I have marched for the freedom of Palestinian people, talk about it, and I won’t allow this Big Brother tactic influence my decision one bit going forward. The US govt can do whatever it damn pleases.
[flagged]
Color me extremely skeptical.