Probably nothing. That free info also comes with YouTube and TikTok and every TV show and movie and game on demand. You have to be very disciplined to focus on difficult topics in a sea of easier and more gratifying entertainment.

- Computers can do as much work as they want to automatically, so long as none of it touches a network boundary.

- Any time a computer wants to touch the network it must be explicitly initiated by a human action. Sort of like how in browsers capturing the mouse or entering fullscreen mode requires a trusted user action and isn't something a page can do unilaterally, but broader. This also means that the extent of the network communication must be made explicit and clear with no chance of misunderstanding by the user. If what you're doing is genuinely complex beyond your ability to communicate to your target user then you shouldn't be doing it on the behalf of that user. Note that this only really applies to mass consumer products, not something built/deployed internally.

I feel like if a hard boundary is not set around this we will end up in a Panopticon. Set aside governments actively pushing for it, it seems a simple profit motive in a digital era yields this outcome. Maybe nuanced rules would produce better outcomes in theory, but humans don't seem great at sticking to nuanced and fiddly rules when there's strong incentive to bend them beyond recognition.

I've stopped talking about it because it's been relegated to a marginal safety issue. Reducing the number of firearms in circulation is a generational project to reduce a bad statistic. It pales in comparison with much more pressing and foundational issues that need to be resolved before anything can even be attempted to improve stats like that. We can't even manage to repair failing bridges[0], enforce basic laws meant to protect the legitimacy of our institutions (see every political scandal since Iran contra), or meaningfully oppose genocides or home grown fascism. When the "opposition" party argues against mass deportations they frame it as though their colleagues across the aisle are merely making an economic miscalculation, like submitting the fact the immigrants are disproportionately hard workers and prop up our economy might be convincing to people who respond to "they're killing and eating your pets." There's a deep rot that needs to be addressed before I can again muster the energy to care about reducing the suicide and homicide rate by 50% of an already pretty-low number (relative to car deaths or heart disease or whatever). No need to muddle the message by tagging it with correct but contentious positions.

0: https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/dot-p...

In planning for 20 years, 13 billion dollars stolen and absorbed by the construction industry and its infinitely fractal subcontracting web. at least it created jobs, I guess. No work has begun.

You realize that calling everyone who criticizes an ongoing genocide an antisemite isn't workable, right?

That would be the case if the publisher had any intent to actually keep the service online. Empirically they do not, hence the law.

That's not what I said. It's all about the framing. Rejecting is automated, accepting is slow and deliberate. This is reflective of a preference for rejection but presented as neutral and pragmatic. If you cared about false negatives as much as false positives you wouldn't fast-track or preference either branch. The observation that this is the case is value-neutral.

As for my personal opinion, I consider freedom of movement a human right and accepting asylum seekers a moral obligation. Both can be implemented poorly, but it's our duty to try to do them right and allocate these systems the resources they need to succeed and to hold incompetent or malicious leaders responsible for failing to operate them effectively.