Mostly RSS feeds of either the upstream projects directly (e.g. Rust Blog about Rust news, OpenSSL releases about OpenSSL,…), blogs by people I have noticed write interesting things (e.g. Cory Doctorow) or collections of news like This Week in Rust.
It was massively unpopular among the relevant demographic, the Tiktok user. Those are the ones you would want to reach obviously.
But that would be a very unpopular move that might even be counter-productive while selling them Tiktok would just be handing them everything they want on a silver platter.
And you think nobody outside of the US is interested in preventing the US from having a total propaganda stranglehold on their own population?
If anything large US companies signaling a desire to buy would make it less likely that a sale actually happens. The awareness that social media has the ability to influence users politically is very much there now and nobody wants that all in the hands of one country, especially one as adversarial as the US.
If most are reuploads anyway that kills the whole argument that deleting things works though.
Way ahead of them. I just buy stuff from other websites now without Amazon or AI involvement.
Who said anything about punishing the people hosting the sites. I was talking about punishing the people uploading and producing the content. The ones doing the part that is orders of magnitude worse than anything else about this.
I am not talking about CSA, I am talking about video material of CSA. Most countries with marriage ages that low have much more wide-spread bans on videos including sex of any kind.
As for prosecution, yes, it is still illegal if it is not prosecuted. There are many reasons not to prosecute something ranging all the way from resource and other means related concerns to intentionally turning a blind eye and only a small minority of them would lead that country to actively sabotage a major international investigation, especially after the trade-offs are considered (such as loss of international reputation by refusing to cooperate).
Cookie banners are completely unnecessary as long as websites only use cookies for technically necessary purposes (e.g. login). The problem is that a lot of websites want to sell your data to hundreds or thousands of other companies. So yeah, we could cut back a lot of red tape there if we just outright banned that sale of data completely.
So you are saying it is too creative for the average person in marketing?
Might be time for a rewrite in something more modern anyway.
That dialog sounds like the AI version of the typical unhelpful FAQ page that answers the questions the company wants to answer instead of the ones that are actually frequently asked. In that situation I mentally tend to pronounce it as Fa-Q (fuck you) page.
Honestly, if the existing victims have to deal with a few more people masturbating to the existing video material and in exchange it leads to fewer future victims it might be worth the trade-off but it is certainly not an easy choice to make.
Which countries do you have in mind where videos of sexual child abuse are legal?
Does it feel odd to anyone else that a platform for something this universally condemned in any jurisdiction can operate for 4 years, with a catchy name clearly thought up by a marketing person, its own payment system and nearly six figure number of videos? I mean even if we assume that some of those 4 years were intentional to allow law enforcement to catch as many perpetrators as possible this feels too similar to fully legal operations in scope.
Rate limiting in itself requires resources that are not always available. For one thing you can only rate limit individuals you can identify so you need to keep data about past requests in memory and attach counters to them and even then that won’t help if the requests come from IPs that are easily changed.
Yeah, the problem with enshittification is not that it is something that some companies do but that all companies are heavily incentivized to do under a lot of circumstances (enough that circumstances will come up for practically any company regularly).
Also politicians should just permanently be ineligible as office holders if they bring up crypto war topics again. Like adding backdoors to cryptography “just for the good guys”. People that stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the laws of nature just don’t deserve the right to be voted into office.
That is because people are bad about making April Fools stories. They are supposed to be about outrageous things that are technically possible but not likely.
Granted, it used to be easier before ridiculous stories like “major new legislation likely written by AI chat bots” were common enough to plausibly happen.