I wonder if the cost benefit analysis would show that this is still the best policy - I.e. are more people dying because of overdose of acetaminophen than would have from “behind the counter” + controlled acquisition of codeine products.
I would also imagine that the compliance / nationwide tracking is now much easier than when the legislation was initially conceived.
I found this to be an issue on YouTube. It wasn’t necessarily malicious. I often put on a no-talking video in the background while reading and the ad interruptions became really loud. I eventually just ended up subscribing, but this is great to see.
I’d posit that even if you somehow do this in a neutral way, consumer adoption will fall in three buckets: (1) largely supportive, (2) largely unsupportive, (3) ambivalent/silent majority.
People who are largely supportive are already seeking out additional data points in their news consumption. Similarly, people who are largely unsupportive will gravitate towards their chosen echo chamber. The silent majority will remain largely ambivalent and, if they vote, will remain single issue voters.
The risk is that the government doesn’t find an effective neutral way for deciding what’s included and what’s not.
I grew up reading NYTimes on the weekend with my parents. I held them in extreme high regard when it came to their news and journalistic integrity. Over the years, I've shifted to think of them as another data point. For the industries that I'm most familiar with (Tech, Finance, and Pharma), I find their reporting often shallow, lacking in nuance, or intentional/unintentional misreporting. And I often wonder if their reporting of other areas is similarly lacking.
Now, they are just another data point, which is sad.
Wasn't it Apple that was trying to get Meta to implement age verification in the first place? So, Meta is trying to get them to do it, which seems right.
Threats exist in both trusted and untrusted environments though.
This feels like a really niche use case for SSH. Exposing this more broadly could lead to set-it-and-forget-it scenarios and ultimately make someone less secure.
What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused.
> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
Banks are required to maintain financial transaction records.
Is the argument that governments don't have a good reason to mandate record collection?
Why can't I ask my government to keep me safe from terrorists but also expect that companies will not just be careless with the data they collect as part of that?
I wonder if the cost benefit analysis would show that this is still the best policy - I.e. are more people dying because of overdose of acetaminophen than would have from “behind the counter” + controlled acquisition of codeine products.
I would also imagine that the compliance / nationwide tracking is now much easier than when the legislation was initially conceived.