But if they really wanted digital verification without the surveillance capitalism built in, I’m sure there are plenty of companies that could do it. Especially if it was around an open source framework.

We did it before. We forgot at the time when things were more-or-less free.

(I don't know how we do this. I'm as dependent as ever.)

AI is about many things, but a big factor is enclosure.

This isn't only a digital sovereignty issue, it's also an anti-competition issue.

I just rewatched it (link in sibling link). It's mocking Farquaad, but I think is clearly meant to be taken as slapstick. Implying that torture is no big deal.

At the opening of the scene, the gingerbread man is being drowned in milk. You see from the shadow, and the voice, that he's having his head submerged in liquid. then Lord Farquaad says "enough! he's ready to talk". So that's simulated drowning as part of interrogation to get information.

Nit-picking about the exact _orientation_ of the victim, and therefore what type of simulated-drowning torture this constitutes, is somewhat missing the point I was trying to make! i.e. that torture is normalised to the point of being slapstick in a children's film.

Children’s fiction has always had a very dark side though.

But the null hypothesis is that there is no new legislation to vote on. It must have come from somewhere!

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but it does seem that there’s an international influence outweighing democracy.

Cui bono?

I’m in the UK and very anti Brexit. But were we still in, I would have no idea how to influence what happens behind those closed doors at the European Commision.

Granted the current UK Labour/ Conservative pact on these issues show they’re completely out of control. But I still theoretically know how I could influence policy.

When I’m trying to do something constructive, like search or browse, infinite scroll is IMHO disastrously bad. You can’t keep your place in the list, or jump ahead/back.

(I can't imagine what an intransitive 'rubbish' would mean!)

They can trivially determine if their tech is effective. Making it mandatory, despite the problems they must surely know about, might produce some democratic pressure for more nuanced legislation.