Please defend your use of your lying false equivalency. Demonstrate your wisdom, Truth Seeker.
XLE
joined 10 months ago
There's no way you can say that the inquiry was about tomatoes as much as it was about addiction. Not without being incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.
You are now intentionally leaving out multiple paragraphs of content that would prove the opposite, which adds to your deception.
Demonstrate a grain of honesty by fixing your lies and maybe you'll have a right to talk.
Annoying as this is, it makes sense. Of course Chrome is the most secure browser in Google's OS. Google controls the stack of software, and they have far more resources than Mozilla or Graphine combined could ever provide.
Macron is 100% right about Big Tech algorithms crushing supposed "free speech." You don't even have to think about offensive or controversial opinions here.
On Facebook, all of your friends are effectively shadowbanned – buried – behind an unending stream of AI-generated garbage videos. You don't have freedom of any speech in a room where a loudspeaker is blaring garbage at you 24/7.
Considering Mozilla basically did the same thing in Firefox, but turned it on by default instead of off (which is worse), it's strange that they praise Firefox in the same article.
There are plenty of good reasons to hate Brave, but I think this whole article can be trashed, and the website itself put behind a blocklist
If you can toggle it, it's definitely a feature worth praising, I'd say.
(And as a warning to all those spicy novel readers out there: An LCD from a bad viewing angle will still often show what you're looking at, but inverted.)
Surely they can wrap up their lawsuits against AI companies for heavily-subsidized abuse of real-life children, before wading into the murky territory of whether a hunk of rubber looks too immature to consent. (Twitter CEO Elon Musk especially seems to have no qualms endorsing CSAM posters.)
I didn't even know doomscrolling on a shopping site was possible. Somebody might need to explain that one to me. I thought that issue was unique to social media, including whatever you call TikTok.
Can you rephrase, "doesn't need to be safer"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Because this is just making people more unsafe.
If you trust parents with giving (or not giving) their children access to the internet, then we don't need a nanny state or ID uploads at all.
Right now AI is equally intelligent and sentient: it is neither... And if you really want to play this fast and this loose with those definitions, you should consider what slaveholders used to say about their slaves. When you feel like liberating the CSAM generating bot, let me know. I'd love to root from the sidelines.
ItIt's frustrating because it's possible to attack companies like Facebook while fully endorsing Section 230. That law states that companies aren't liable for things that users post... Unless they become aware of bad content and choose to ignore it.
And Facebook has shown its hand here. They've admitted they have moderation tools, through their pledge to crack down on anti-genocide opinions. They want to have it both ways, but hopefully people see through their BS.
I find it more interesting that you implicitly agree with me... Or worse, you believe slavery is happening and endorse it
If you care about using third-party Android apps, I have good news for you, but grim news for the ecosystem. You will still be able to use third-party apps. But it's going to be harder. You'll probably need to use something like Shizuku or an ADB tool. The first wave of those affected won't be you and me; it'll be people who aren't quite as technically competent. Then, slowly, a chilling effect will echo across independent development.