I’ve only skimmed this so far, but while I firmly believe that the fetishizing of freedom of expression is causing real issues in our world, I appreciate Masnick’s critique. I expect I’ll always be more keen on regulation than he is, but that doesn’t make him wrong in the points he’s making here.

This feels too good to be true? But if the legislation is really dead (at least this time around), I’ll take it.

This is pretty good.

There are some important and interesting pieces of information in here.

Too much truth in this.

“Mentioning names both is and isn’t allowed. It’s a quantum superposition of content moderation that only collapses when observed by Musk himself.” 😂😂😂

I’ve been waiting for Doctorow’s take on this, and it’s good. I’m an Apple user, but Doctorow’s criticisms all ring true to me.

I doubt this is as straightforward as the headline makes it sound, but there are lots of interesting points in this article.

Bookmarking for future research. What a fascinating (if frustrating) interplay of social media platforms and religious authority.

Oh, so the moral panic is hypocritical, too.

Fascinating perspective. I’d never learned this before.

I don’t understand how this has a chance to win in November. gift link

Free speech absolutism wins again.

Really enjoyed this.

Audrey Watters was warning about something like this almost a decade ago. It’s time for edtech folks to step up and recognize that technology in schools goes far beyond that exciting new classroom tech—and that we can’t do something about stuff like this if we’re overly focused on efficiency and effectiveness.

Masnick puts this better than I could. This legislation is dumb, but this advocacy feels dumber.

On vit dans un monde pourri, mais quelle jolie façon d’apprendre la phrase « pied de nez ».

Companies can really suck. I liked Roku, too.

Flock provides the ALPRs here in Lexington, which makes this especially frustrating.

So, if employers save time from AI, and applicants save time from AI, where’s the net benefit? Or does it become a new burden for everyone?

Last few sentences of the article really make the point.

I have my own (complicated) thoughts to share on this later, but more than anyone else, I’ve wanted to hear from David Howlett (and, okay, Lach Mackay). Appreciate Jana’s coverage here.

Bookmarking for future reference. Are the purported benefits of generative AI worth these (and other) costs?

Helpful reminder that it’s low-paid, underappreciated workers who contribute to AI as much as high-paid programmers and household-name executives.

This strikes me as illustrating the digital labor issues associated with generative AI. It’s someone else profiting off of one’s work.