_A poll of more than 2,000 social media users in China found that about four in 10 respondents have experienced some form of online abuse.”

I’m very sure this is an underrepresented statistic. From what I’ve seen, if you don’t fit in the masses box of conformity, the straight up hate and abuse gets pretty bad. Calling this behavior trolling is putting things very nicely.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Did he say boys hole?

Bland, beige office buildings are soul crushing.

In practice, none of this really helps and there is no rigorous monitoring of compliance with it or consequences to violations of it. If there were, credit bureaus would no longer be a viable business model and some kind of public agency would have to perform the function instead.

What'd he say?

far better than someone pulling the plug when the person's brain is still working.

Troll tooooooooll

TIL Google Groups still exists

Maybe they really, really want to use sms two factor auth?

No. You don’t have to go hunting. The text:

> (a) Initial notice and opt-out requirement —

> (1) In general. You may not use eligibility information about a consumer that you receive from an affiliate to make a solicitation for marketing purposes to the consumer, unless:

> (i) It is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically, in a concise notice that you may use eligibility information about that consumer received from an affiliate to make solicitations for marketing purposes to the consumer;

> (ii) The consumer is provided a reasonable opportunity and a reasonable and simple method to “opt out,” or prohibit you from using eligibility information to make solicitations for marketing purposes to the consumer; and

> (iii) The consumer has not opted out.

There’s more, but this comment displays a fundamental lack of familiarity with US privacy law. For example, they can’t collect data unless it’s for credit approval purposes. Meaning you must seek the service and consent to provide the info for a limited purpose. And even GDPR respects that.

Everything is true minus the customers part. I find it hard to believe they have that many customers.

Probably the fate of Bard in 12 months.

This article did not really present evidence that it is worse in china like it claimed other then just some hand waving of "collectivist culture makes not normal people get bullied" which seems like the author kind of just made up. Like the stories of bulliying are sad and all but I do kinda of feel focusing on it's "uniqueness to china" is very misleading and just wrong.

So you have to go hunting for settings somewhere and be presented with choices that may or may not be easy to interpret in order to opt out, instead of being automatically protected? Or having the option of not letting these entities collect your data in the first place?

Also, what happens if they violate these statutes? Not enough to keep them from doing it again.

Prepare to see a drawing of your mom's puss

the star-bellied sneetches was not an instruction manual Mr Musk

[removed]

would us r/Aphantasia folks just have fuck all of nothing?

So first of all, I don't think you ever looked at their system. When you checked out a book, it was a complete honor system that you deleted the file. There was no returning of anything. They just didn't lend it out again for 30 days, which was the time after which you were supposed to delete the file, but no checks were ever done. You didn't even have to go in and click a button promising that you had. It WAS freely, and you even admit that it wasn't even restricted at all for months.

It's not at all as normal libraries. Libraries pay vast sums to be allowed to operate as they do. Every time a book is checked out in a library, the library pays, IA wasn't.

And 300 authors asking to drop it means there's millions that didn't... That's REALLY not an argument in favor of your position as you seem to think.

All that being said, as for changing the law, well, to make what IA did legal, you would either have to make IA immune to copyright or abolish copyright entirely. It's not a matter of that WHAT they did should be legal because what they did is the very core of what copyright was designed to stop. Heck, regular old piracy being covered is the side effect, THIS is the core.

Abolishing copyright isn't going to happen any time soon, even if it is the option I personally would vote for, and making IA as they are immune to copyright is just plain never going to happen. The most likely you could hope for is that a governmental institution is created that takes on the role and is immune, but even that is a very, VERY far fetch. This outcome was clear from the beginning, and IA should have known that long before they began the project.

Google has groups? Is that like part of Hangouts or something?

I think I will cry or just move on

Not really. It's more about decoding the brain's image processing abilities. Decoding memories is a totally different animal that we still have no notion of how to do.

Could lead us to some neat cyborg implants that would enhance or replace broken vision, but it's a far cry from reading thoughts or memories. Worst case would be that Black Mirror episode about the implanted recording device.

Wait, what?

They're paying for something...and they're going to want to hide it?

Tell you what: Send me your money and pretend like you're hiding the mark. It'll get put to better use than giving it to Musk.