Reminder that simplex will put forward censorship measures for CSAM (as per their "declaration of war to CSAM"), and some people say it's a violation of E2EE.

> I never imagined I would have to go to the lengths criminals do just to keep me safe from my opinions.

Friendly reminder. Treat criminals the same way you want to be treated, because the line separating a good citizen from a criminal is very fuzzy at times.

> That'll be a win for people who want to "protect kids from LGBT ideology".

That'd be dumb and funny if politicians wouldn't abuse people's fears to boost conspiracy theories for their agenda. For example, where I live some politicians associated the trans community with paedophilic behavior.

I don't understand their endgame really. Where these anti free choice (anti-freedom) stances come from.

OP's talking about a specific use-case related to tech companies like Google. Not creative writing or research, areas in which AI is in no shape for supporting humans with it's current safety alignment.

I'm not talking about creative writing or reearch.

> Nobody is building nuclear power plants for data centres

Argentina just announced they're building nuclear plants for AI.

You're right. I think hypocrisy is an adult thing. Parent's post gives unjust bad reputation for children.

Fundamentally speaking, government decisions are based on the individual egocentric needs of each member, not the needs of the population at large. This is why you can't trust governments to do the good thing: to make sure they do good you must coerce them as you would a private company.

I’m not sure what connection that has to the topic - it sound tautological to say that good oversight will lead to better outcomes than poor oversight.

I'm saying that "good oversight" is fundamentally impossible, at least in a humanistic sense. Because individual people have individual ideas about what "good oversight" is.

This includes government officials. Your views will certainly collide with a politician's views on what's "good oversight".

That's assuming the money made by internalizing the externalities is used to benefit those who would otherwhise be negatively affected by them.

It'd be a worse situation if the money is spent, for example, running campaigns for the next elections.

A better arragement would be for the affected people to receive the tax payments directly.

Effective regulation could actually have made clean coal plants. In principle that junk can be filtered, but it was cheaper to lobby for rules exemptions than to pay for filters.

Sometimes damage can be prevented instead of remediated. Sometimes it isn't about victims getting paid, but preventing people from being victimized.

Effective regulation was not achieved, so it makes sense to demand the next most beneficial action for users. I wouldn't trust the people in charge though.

Not necessarily. Often the incumbent technology remains that way simply because it’s cheaper. If the taxes cause the price to go up enough that it has a similar cost to an alternative, the alternative has a chance of becoming the preferred option. It doesn’t matter where the extra tax money goes for this to be effective.

Sure it would be nice if it helped victims, etc, but getting that part figured out would be a prime target for the incumbents to derail the whole process.

That's right. I think taxes are not the right solution for this.

Victims most be compensated, but adding tax to a certain technology is just a failing band-aid as you exemplify.

The fundamental problem is people being out of the picture in all of this. The solution must necessarily have common people involved.

maybe he is

Noo! Think about the children!

(this post is sarcastic)

If they cared about the kids they would out ahead of this before it spreads like wildfire.