At a corporate level, no one cares about lots of freedoms, except if it is a selling point.

If 'keeping freedoms' is a selling point then the ideal position is to gain the kudos of appearing to support this whilst also getting the benefits of the loss of freedoms. Why not get both?

I made a statement, have defended it, asked your position, and in order to sign off with a bad faith message you put words in my mouth (that I admitted my logic has no basis in fact).

And sorry for bringing information to your attention. Just wait till you hear about how corporates fund law.

So the whole thing is actually about greater control of the law-abiding (not decreasing crime), and how to engineer the circumstances to get the public to accept the unacceptable.

"EU laws", the EU in general is plainly the excuse that will carry the day - people seem to believe this 'good cop' rendition.

Where's the open source phone?

The open source washing machine?

You're asking for new legislation written by governments that a/ want that data to spy on you too and b/ are lobbied by corporations to write the legislation corps want.

It's a closed loop of crap, that goes in one direction only.

Eg, I can say: "ai wrote this comment".

Or I can say: "ai did not write this comment".

Looking at the comments alone does not tell you whether they were or were not written by ai. Same for videos.

What is going on is that you are trusting the disclosure is significant and real. So, when you see the disclosure you are concluding something on the basis of TRUST. Same for the video itself.

Seeing something on a screen does not make it a true representation of reality. You do not know reality; you only know that you saw a video. This applies to disclosure, video, comments - anything on a screen.

And you know that how?

And, how do you know news itself is not 100% ai? News corps may simply fail to disclose that it was ai, be taken in, remove watermarks, etc.

The fact is no one can say what one sees on a screen is a true representation of reality. People are acting on a consensus feeling.

If it's as the earlier poster said that sinking is 8mm per year, versus 3.2mm and they point out the 3.2, don't you think this news organisation has missed the main detail?

You think greeks were considered black in the 1960s?

Perhaps you have just received a very poor education. Perhaps the colours of people really have shifted a lot in your understanding.

> Its not gas lighting and you diminish the term by suggesting it is.

If the colours of different people have NOT shifted in your understanding, saying someone needs medical help for stating the obvious, common understanding is pretty close to the text book definition of gas lighting. It's just that you think it is for a good cause.