My point is just that it doesn’t make sense to criticize the question for not reading the article if the article doesn’t answer the question, and what’s really needed to answer it is additional context. The broad scope of Riot’s statement could be construed to mean they could do more than just ban streamers for using hateful language.

Makes sense. I played Dota for some time and honestly that was one of the things I enjoyed about it, unreasonable people being furious with me while being totally helpless to do anything about it other than lose their shit. Although it’s a dirty sort of enjoyment and makes things extremely awkward; on an emotional level what you want out of the match is for your teammates to fail, but you’re obliged by the rules and a sense of sportsmanship not to throw, so even if you don’t want to be dishonest about what you’re doing it’s hard to play seriously.

I think it would be cool if there was a moba that somehow formalizes the adversarial relationship you have with your team. Maybe like a Survivor esque battle royale setup; in the beginning it’s 5v5, and you’ll be advantaged by the success of your team, but ultimately you are going to have to betray them to win, and also the losers will have an opportunity to influence the outcome.

The article focuses on streamers and doesn’t unambiguously answer this question

What about the genre itself produces toxicity?

Dehydrators work reasonably well for many similar uses and are pretty cheap

It cannot

The definition is too vague and if you apply it to the letter it would include 99% of websites

I think that is their intention

Here’s a link to the text of the legislation.

From what I understand they define it very broadly:

(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;

(ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;

(iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;

(iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or (b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;

So basically everything Web 2.0 - ish that they haven’t given an explicit exception to. Lemmy totally qualifies.

does that ever actually happen

Well who knows, maybe they were part of an elaborate airline miles fraud scheme like in that one Always Sunny episode

Well no, there’s clearly a third group who is compulsively obsessed with consuming and repeating political memes in a way that isn’t actually giving them any power or agency.

Kung Hsiang-sheng, associate researcher at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said such systems are extremely hard to implement in real life, however.

“Internet censors already filter and delete politically sensitive posts, but they have little ability to monitor happenings on the ground,” Kung said.

“The only way they would be able to prevent and detect such crimes is if the person announced they were planning to kill people in a school or on the street in advance, say in an online forum,” he said.

He said there is unlikely to be much prior warning of such crimes online.

“They can’t investigate anyone who sounds disgruntled on the internet,” Kung said. “It’s much harder to use technology to prevent crimes … that are carried out with no prior online warning.”

It sounds like they don’t actually have a Minority Report style prediction system that would work here, despite all their spying. Politicians like to say they have the solution to preventing violence even where effective solutions don’t exist.

Awful

The biggest reason why not is that it requires the implementation of centralized tracking systems for everyone to confirm ID for accessing these services, which is a privacy nightmare and takes way too much agency away from individuals. If Reddit or something bans me for a stupid reason or because their broad brush modbots malfunctioned, I should be able to evade that ban with enough care and effort, and the government shouldn’t help them make sure I can’t. I should also have the ability to use social media pseudonymously without being subject to corporate tracking.

The other reason, of course, is that banning children from social media cuts them off from participating in society or having any sort of a public voice. That’s fucked up too.

So they stretch it over their fin or what, how is it staying on

It’s “open weights” if they are publishing the model file but nothing about its creation. There’s some hypothetical security concerns with training it to give very specific outputs for certain very specific inputs but I feel like that’s one of those kind of far fetched worries especially if you want to use it for chat or summarization and the comparison is getting AI output from a server API. Local is still way better.

They go into this in the filing:

Under both the Prepetition TOS and the Current TOS, all right, title, and interest in and to X Corp.’s services, including X Corp.’s various websites, SMS, APIs, email notifications, applications, buttons, widgets, ads, commerce services, and other covered services (collectively, the “Services”) are X Corp.’s “exclusive property.” See Prepetition TOS § 4; Current TOS § 4. X Corp., as the owner of the Services, grants each user “a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non- exclusive license to use the software provided” to use the Services. See Prepetition TOS § 4 (emphasis added); Current TOS § 4 (same). In contrast to the Services, the account holders own the Content (as defined in the TOS) they submit, post, or display on or through the Services; however, the Content is distinct and separate from the Services.

So I guess the account itself is something they’re saying is part of the Services X provides and is their property, while the stuff you post on the account is yours.

Failing to stick to a regular time for going to bed and waking up increases the risk of stroke, heart attack and heart failure by 26%

So you’re probably good then

When I took an economics class in college, the idea was broached that it could be possible for finishing a degree to be a sunk cost fallacy, if you realized that the degree didn’t benefit you or wasn’t a good use of your time midway through finishing it, and the effort you already put into it shouldn’t be a consideration. This was a very unpopular idea and most students in the class refused to believe the Sunk Cost fallacy is a real fallacy.

Copfirmation bias