There are two totally separate categories of AI regulation - the first is a sort of DEI based “disparate impact” analysis discussed in this article, focused on content, and the other is for reasons of national security and safety, focused on capabilities (supercharged AI agents will be the most powerful spying tool in history). The former is stupid and should be opposed at all costs, and the latter is pretty much mandatory for maintaining a free society into the future.
I see by the Sarah McLaughlin article "Quran burner assassinated in Sweden -- and another arrested in the UK" that Iraqi refugee in Sweden Salwan Momika, who was there charged with the fake crime "incitement against an ethnic group" for burning a Koran, which is bad librarianship but not incitement against an ethnic group, was assassinated January 29.
In light of his decease, the majesty of the Swedish law is pleased to drop the ridiculous but severe charges against him. I really cannot see why. In what respect would its dignity be further besmirched by prosecuting a corpse?
I see by the Ari Cohn article "The FTC is overstepping its authority -- and threatening free speech online" that the FIRE view of social media platforms is that they are publications, full stop, with their owners retaining the full rights of publishers.
But publishers--or, let us say for now other publishers--do not have and cannot have a Communications Decency Act, let alone a section 230 thereof. If Congress permitted a social media to opt out--or for cause be opted out--of section 230 protections, or Congress repealed them, or if the courts found them unconstitutional, then it would be unobjectionable to regard social media platforms as publishers.
Defamation law, for one thing (and there are others), requires that someone be legally responsible for the content of a publication, and the same must apply to social media platforms. This is no more of a restriction of free press in the one context than in the other.
I didn't realize there was a 'Coddling' doc! I will have to watch (and maybe assign it in one of my classes). It relates to what I have been thinking about in terms of kids no longer walking (or even taking the bus!) to school and instead being chauffeured by parents in long traffic lines. Worte about it here: https://collegetowns.substack.com/p/the-school-car-pickup-line-is-a-national
I love how every issue of ERI is "Not Approved by the Comics Code Authority".
If one knows the history of the CCA, and their association with actual book-burning and authoritarian censorship, that is completely appropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
There are two totally separate categories of AI regulation - the first is a sort of DEI based “disparate impact” analysis discussed in this article, focused on content, and the other is for reasons of national security and safety, focused on capabilities (supercharged AI agents will be the most powerful spying tool in history). The former is stupid and should be opposed at all costs, and the latter is pretty much mandatory for maintaining a free society into the future.
I see by the Sarah McLaughlin article "Quran burner assassinated in Sweden -- and another arrested in the UK" that Iraqi refugee in Sweden Salwan Momika, who was there charged with the fake crime "incitement against an ethnic group" for burning a Koran, which is bad librarianship but not incitement against an ethnic group, was assassinated January 29.
In light of his decease, the majesty of the Swedish law is pleased to drop the ridiculous but severe charges against him. I really cannot see why. In what respect would its dignity be further besmirched by prosecuting a corpse?
I see by the Ari Cohn article "The FTC is overstepping its authority -- and threatening free speech online" that the FIRE view of social media platforms is that they are publications, full stop, with their owners retaining the full rights of publishers.
But publishers--or, let us say for now other publishers--do not have and cannot have a Communications Decency Act, let alone a section 230 thereof. If Congress permitted a social media to opt out--or for cause be opted out--of section 230 protections, or Congress repealed them, or if the courts found them unconstitutional, then it would be unobjectionable to regard social media platforms as publishers.
Defamation law, for one thing (and there are others), requires that someone be legally responsible for the content of a publication, and the same must apply to social media platforms. This is no more of a restriction of free press in the one context than in the other.
I didn't realize there was a 'Coddling' doc! I will have to watch (and maybe assign it in one of my classes). It relates to what I have been thinking about in terms of kids no longer walking (or even taking the bus!) to school and instead being chauffeured by parents in long traffic lines. Worte about it here: https://collegetowns.substack.com/p/the-school-car-pickup-line-is-a-national