*Tell me you've never encountered a real courtroom without telling me never encountered a real courtroom... *
Our legal systems have long required things like "chain of custody" and "corroborating evidence" for essentially any claim. Because in essentially any instance where the opposing sides dispute a question of fact they need to convince a mildly annoyed rando that things happened a certain way while the other team is arguing that it's all a hoax.
They generally skip all that in courtroom dramas and even broadcasted courtrooms, because the very first phase of any trial is discovery where both sides show some or all of their cards to try and convince the other team to fold.
AI slop is hardly the first time someone invented a new tool for faking evidence. Heck, we had a whole industry based on faking video evidence before the first surveilance camera was ever installed.
(There's a huge possibility for slander and fraud that the general public should wise up to, but starting with an assumption that evidence is fake unless proven otherwise is kinda how things go.)
(And, yes, the big hole here is that "best avaliable" evidence is often nonsense. ACAB and all that. My point is just that fake evidence isn't a dangerous new invention courts have never seen before.)
And if you're a kid, the job of keeping those people away from you is your parents'. They can either step up now or deal with never seeing you once you move out.
No, you don't. Anyone who tells you that you must is pro-bigot and pro-rape.
Thanksgiving is a holiday about what you are glad for in your life. The only people you should deal with on Thanksgiving are those who you would thank God for putting (or keeping) in your life.
Everyone else should either take the hint, or not be surprised when you engage in the modern tradition of "tell off your racist uncle who can't keep his mouth shut" day.
Causality is just determinists starting with "time travel is impossible" and finding a fancy name for it.
I don't want to say they're wrong, just that asserting casualty in a discussion about time travel being impossible is kinda like asserting Godwin's Law in a discussion about whether or not Trump's a nazi.
The same places you buy pre-made hummus also sell factory-made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There are a lot worse food crimes than "Food for people who dont own a blender."
A good portion of those who left Bluesky did so for bluesky.
ATProto vs ActivityPub are very different ways to build a social network, and Bsky 's still has a fairly big asterisk, but they scale up dramatically better than Lemmy/Mastadon and aren't quite as "not-federated" as some ActivityPub promoters want to admit.
Most notably, you can move the canonical source of your account data to a server not owned by Bluesky, and access the same massive firehouse of data via a client app or last-server option of your choice. And since the banning and safety is done mostly in either that canonical source or last-server step, moving away from the crypto-friendly founding corp is enough for many.
I'm sure there's a big swath who moved to Mastadon or threads or even to Twitter. But BlueSky's still got plenty of traffic for what I want from it.
Both are worth including if you're calorie counting. (And don't necessarily trust the per-serving size label, since if they set that low enough they can round down and claim a 100% fat cooking spray is 0 calories. We only used to be civilized.)
Just because they are a distasteful company, doesn't give us free reign to spread lies about them.
To be pedantic, I'm spreading alarmist rumors at worst. In English a "lie" has to be something the speaker doesn't actually believe. And I honestly believe that users of WhatsApp should assume that Meta can read their messages.
The signal protocol and encryption explicitly prevents the transit server decrypting messages.
That a theoretical hidden third person ... in the chat doesn't change that is e2e encrypted.
You're splitting a hair that's not even worth curling.
If I ship you a locked box via courier, and the courier can get a copy of the key without talking to either of us, we should presume that the courier may have looked inside and take appropriate measures. Like, inventorying the contents of said box before and after, and not shipping things we don't want the courier to know about.
It doesn't matter if the courier keeps the box locks, doesn't habitually carry a key, or even promises that they won't get a key. We don't even have to assume that they actually looked in the box, or use a slower or more-expensive courier.
If there's a plausible way they can open the box, we should start with the presumption that they did and then go from there.
Amazon the internet megastore allows non-employees of Amazon to add content to their store. Both as supposed vendors offering goods for services and as customers giving reviews and ratings to such store listings. And Amazon chooses what listings to show to users through opaque algorithms.
Can you give an example of the sort of regulation a social media site should need to follow which Amazon should be exempt from? Or the sort of rule that should bind reddit and Facebook but not Amazon?
If you don't like meta any more than I do, why are you arguing so strongly that they deserve the benefit of the doubt?
And, more interestingly, what precisely do you mean that Meta including themselves as a recipient in every WhatsApp chat would not render their E2E encryption equivalent to HTTPS?
AFAIK both are in-transit encryption that prevents casual monitoring by other entries along the network path between you and the person you're chatting with, but expose you to undetectable monitoring on the part of the service provider.
You are assuming good behavior on the part of a corporate giant grown out of a social media site literally founded to spy on its users. A company who is literally being sued for their claims that their chat app is meaningfully encrypted
Even if Meta isn't currently including themselves as a hidden participant in every WhatsApp chat, you should assume that they can do so and act as if they will do so.
Odds are pretty good that their encryption usage is good enough for any lawful behavior you may engage in, but you shouldn't trust Meta or any software they provide with anything that would destroy your life if it was revealed.
Meta using the name of a formerly independent company for their current pseudo-private messaging app does not mean said app meaningfully predates the one whose tech they use.
(Please share if you have a link arguing the opposite.)
More importantly, the encryption in Whatsapp is closer to HTTPS than it is to PGP. It keeps anyone except Meta or the recipients from keeping a record of what you say, but you should absolutely assume Meta is recording what you say on WhatsApp.
(And you should also assume anyone you talk to is keeping a record as well.)
Most of the people I know have largely abandoned personal email. Way back before everyone had a personal number it made sense to share your email with your friends, but nowadays 'contact that goes directly to them' is good enough for casual purposes.
(And as understand it, WhatsApp is a cancerous fork of Signal created by Meta as a response to people abandoning their social media site for private communication or discord. Plain carrier messages for casual communication, signal for avoiding third-party interception, and social media for folk you don't trust with your phone number.)
Depositing a $2 trillion dollar coin to reduce the nominal debt would itself have relatively little impact on the.value of the dollar, since it's just in the essentially fake books of the US national government. Dollars, after all, are just coupons for "I am worth $1 towards any US government debt or court judgement."
Depositing a $2 billion coin with the UN, in contrast, would have exactly the same inflationary pressure as giving 200,000,000 Americans 2000 $1 coins.
schroedinger's cat is an intentionally absurd metaphor from when QM dorks were still arguing about spooky action at a distance.
Both the cat, the box, the vial of poison, and the cesium atom itself are all observers as far as a real QM wavefunction would care. But as i understand it, getting any utility out of the idea of real collapsing wave-functions requires treating at least the atom as if it wasn't, and once we start including atomic scale things we might as well just include everything up to and including the cat.
*Tell me you've never encountered a real courtroom without telling me never encountered a real courtroom... *
Our legal systems have long required things like "chain of custody" and "corroborating evidence" for essentially any claim. Because in essentially any instance where the opposing sides dispute a question of fact they need to convince a mildly annoyed rando that things happened a certain way while the other team is arguing that it's all a hoax.
They generally skip all that in courtroom dramas and even broadcasted courtrooms, because the very first phase of any trial is discovery where both sides show some or all of their cards to try and convince the other team to fold.
AI slop is hardly the first time someone invented a new tool for faking evidence. Heck, we had a whole industry based on faking video evidence before the first surveilance camera was ever installed.
(There's a huge possibility for slander and fraud that the general public should wise up to, but starting with an assumption that evidence is fake unless proven otherwise is kinda how things go.)
(And, yes, the big hole here is that "best avaliable" evidence is often nonsense. ACAB and all that. My point is just that fake evidence isn't a dangerous new invention courts have never seen before.)