2026-04-03 16:19:31
What could possibly go wrong?
2026-04-02 04:12:25
Clearly the perspective which the Australian eSafety Commissioner brings to the table is “users are untrustworthy scum and must be whipped into control” – basically like MPs, then.
Also: “false negatives” are not a thing and never occur; if an AI declares you to be likely “too young” it cannot possibly be a technological problem.
2026-03-28 15:02:58
Excellent piece:
The lesson from these examples isn’t that protecting children online is misguided or an unworthy goal. It is that the means proposed to achieve this end pose significant risks to human rights, and that the tools created for that purpose can easily become instruments of broader control over speech once governments acquire them.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/social-media-freedom-speech-meta-youtube-ruling-32aaee3b archived at: https://archive.ph/PMCjL
2026-03-28 03:23:28
Read this:
Declaring the target to be “design features” — such as infinite scroll or notifications — instead of speech doesn’t change things. The First Amendment isn’t fooled by synonyms, and what these lawsuits target is, inescapably, speech. Some allegations are aimed at content hosted by platforms that some perceive as harmful. And the ways platforms arrange, display, and choose how users consume content are editorial choices that are protected by the First Amendment. That those features might be designed to keep users’ attention is hardly a groundbreaking discovery. That is the point of all media. Imposing liability because speech is too appealing would be a breathtaking incursion on free speech.
https://www.fire.org/news/big-tech-verdicts-youre-cheering-are-actually-terrible-free-speech
2026-03-27 22:56:16
There are a bunch of “must read” Threads on Bluesky today, which to me indicate that people crowing about a “safer internet for children” due to the Meta lawsuits, are actually making things worse for everybody, including kids. I can’t embed entire threads so please click-through and read up & down + links: you should follow the authors, too:
…and:
…and:
2026-03-27 17:06:11
…under the “design liability” theory, implementing encryption becomes evidence of negligence, because a small number of bad actors also use encrypted communications […] encryption itself harms no one. Like infinite scroll and autoplay, it is inert without the choices of bad actors — choices made by people, not by the platform’s design.
“Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For” | Techdirt