“Not guilty” is distinct from “innocent”, and such a verdict, if a trial ever comes of this, would not impact libel or slander. Being unable to prove your accusations in court to the standard required is not a determination that the accusations were false, only that doubt remained.
Good riddance, though a plane crash seems like a relatively easy way to “kill” someone while they go into hiding.
Sure, as long as we also have a competency test for retirees as well.
I wonder who scores better?
Well, takes one to know one, ya know?
Why would this be treated any differently than googling things? I just googled the same prompt about hiding food that’s mentioned in the article and it gave me pretty much the same advice. One of the top links was an ED support forum where they were advising each other on how to hide their eating disorder.
These articles are just outrage bait at this point. There are some legitimate concerns about AI, but bashing your hand with a hammer and blaming the hammer shouldn’t be one of them.
I think too often we get caught up on “the game” and try to frame decisions solely in that context.
The reality is that sometimes in politics people hold genuine beliefs, and when it comes to the GOP I think a non-insignificant caucus of them genuinely opposes abortion for various personal reasons.
Haven’t used my desktop in ages, has been completely replaced by my personal and work laptops.
He’d probably have to put all of his eggs in the reincarnation basket and start doing some good deeds.
Or bad deeds, depending on your opinion of actors.
This line from Schindler’s List always stuck with me:
“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
The context is that at the end of the movie Schindler is distraught thinking of how many more he could have saved if he just did certain things differently, like selling a ring and using that money to hire another Jewish worker. One of the people he saved tells him the above line.
It’s stuck with me for two reasons, I think.
First, it’s an interesting perspective on individuality. Each person has their own unique perspective of the world. When that person dies, that perspective is gone forever. An entire universe dies with them, never to be seen again. I think that’s a powerful way to view the individual.
Second, it’s a reminder that we do what we can, and while it may be imperfect, it’s enough. You can’t save everyone, just live well and help those you can in the capacity that you can. If you save one of those people, you’ve saved the world.
The Exorcist got me pretty good
Bathtub is a common spot for my GSD during fireworks and thunderstorms.
In this case the article states Meta did not comply with the requests and responded to the FBI with concerns about the accounts being flagged. It also states that Meta was not pressured to comply with the requests.
I think this is a tricky situation. It’s in the interest of social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation on their platforms. When that misinformation is coming from state actors (e.g. Russia) it’s not uncommon for the US Government to have the best knowledge of those efforts. It follows that the social media company would want to consult with the US Government to improve their efforts. But the US Government obviously also has its own interests and biases that can very easily corrupt those efforts.
There has been cases (as pointed out in the last court case) where I think the government did cross the line from advisory to directive. I think that’s a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed.
IMO the answer to this is a bit of a one-way communication and transparency. The US Government should keep a publicly accessible database of what it believes to be misinformation efforts including posts, accounts, etc. Third parties can audit that DB and conduct their own reviews. It would then be up to them whether or not to use that information to aid their own efforts. The public can also review that information and they (and the media) can point out the flaws and mistakes they believe are being made.
Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can’t I eat a person?!
It was a defamation case in which the courts determined that Trump made false statements by denying the allegations because he most likely did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll.
No criminal case was brought because it’s beyond the statute of limitations, and since the legal bar in a criminal case is higher I don’t think any prosecutor would bring those charges even if statute of limitations wasn’t an issue.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321