with how EC has been behaving recently that might make things worse..
2,260 karma · joined December 13, 2018
We have to stop shielding and bailing out companies(ans banks) when their bet fails.
No matter the biome, no matter the planet you just tick check-boxes which systems are enabled or not, but their combinations do not give you anything special back.
No matter what environment is generated you play in very similar way.
Elite: Dangerous suffers from the exactly the same issue. There's tons of interesting systems, yet you will do one thing of your choosing, that will play in the same way all the time. Like a theme park, while the game promises you a simulation.
Tailwind is just conceptually bunch of css inline styles repackaged as classes for performance boost. It was always just shifting complexity around, but offered an immediate perception of productivity gain, because you could just make a quick edit here and there.
Which makes current model, and federated model impossible and/or prone to crumbling. Problems of Germany are different than one Spain faces, and France, and Poland etc.
The amount of layers between your vote, and the elected official that matters is just too big to have any form of accountability, especially when you couple it with national issues.
I'm frankly less concerned about populism, but more concerned about sheer disregard of opinions of citizens.
You're asking the group profiting from current arrangement to change it.
Trade union is more likely honestly.
European Commission is so disjoined from electorate through many layers of elections, that it can disregard it completely - practically citizens have no input on EC's body. Any legislation originates from there which makes it even worse.
Only guarantee of EC doing their job is their Oath, and vote of no confidence is basically impossible to call, nor there's a way to initiate one from citizens side via for example a referendum. There are no consequences for not following the Oath at all so corrupt EC can easily push things that are favorable for bigger voting blocks, while screwing everyone else and get away with it.
The only measure that citizens have to actually affect EU turned out to be worthless(as SKG initiative has shown) - as Citizens Initiative is not binding at all, and can be disregarded.
EU itself creates a system of double loyalty for every politician - do they pursue national interest or do they jump ship to European ones(including appointed positions)? This erodes national systems of check and balances.
European initiatives are impossible to control nor audit form member state PoV, and it's even worse from citizen PoV. And there's no mechanism to counteract bureaucratic bloat growth, nor rampant lobbying.
European Council is used as a way to launder unpopular legislations and push it onto all member states - like chat control.
Most of the times none of those legislations have been a part of internal political campaigns - and even if they were, they were such in only single member state. There was zero input from citizens, even in forms of voting for their own government.
President of European Parliament can act against parliament itself, again with no mechanism for any consequences(ie best example is pushing chat control vote just before summer vacation this year)
Whole institution of EU after Lisbon Treaty was made with assumption that every member state will pursue their own best interests, MEPs will pursue their own best national interests too. But sadly this created system in which it is difficult to purge any form of corruption(both embezzlement/criminal, pursuing personal interests or being purely ideologically driven without consideration of practicality).
This was done to create resistance to populism, but in practice created system that's extremely resistant to purging corruption.
It doesn't help that EU itself is a very top-down organization. Not in form of dictatorship - it's far from that - but in form of committee driven changes by unelected civil servants that operate like a black box.
and one last thing, not related to checks and balances - EU itself moves at glacial pace and is resistant to change by design - which would be perfectly fine for just a Trade Union. Unfortunately it leads to it both not reacting in time, and pushing initiatives that are already outdated.
I would argue it's even worse, because with properly designed federated system you get checks and balances to some extent.
There are parts of EU that have almost zero oversight.
Any assingement of blame of using unauthorized LLM generated content could be shifted to external contractor(preferably outside of EU's jurisdiction) where you yourself had no awareness of it. Contract of course explicitly forbids LLM content and requires labeling.
This is and extremely basic loophole that gives enough plausible deniability to any sane publisher/content farm.
Now you need to prove they were aware of LLM content being generated, as they cannot rely on LLM content detection methods due to high amount of false positives.
Even easier if you publish content from people writing under pseudonyms/anonymously. It devolves into he said she said kind of situation, and burden of proof is on accusers side.
Basically depending on enforcement this system either:
- only punishes small players that cannot afford to setup such chain
- is used as an arbitrary excuse to shut some outlets if the system is corrupt
You can go to reddit and cherry pick coments, that are made before LLMs, that have that exact LLM style.
And isn't this easy to sidestep via plausible deniability and using middleman outside of EU borders?
So bad actors, especially ones outside of EU, can just continue to operate as is and ones within can just outsource the 'bad' work outside.
AI disclosure makes sense, but it should be a short list in standardized label format.ie AI used for code, assets, text, etc.
The problem is what we(as society )try to sidestep: is to have content creators(including major traditional media) be held responsible for content they provide.
(0) give up
...
(n) waste resources
yeah, i think current state is good enough, might as well slap regulation and ban any form of targetted ads.
How does it prevent fingerprinting if you get access to both logs and try to time it? Even more so if you include already present tracking infrastructure, which as a government you can just request data from.
It is possible to de-anonymize people based on aggregate data already, and this proposed solution just adds extra data points.
Even in countries in which this requires a subpoena, agencies break the law frequently and don't get punished.
Legal systems aren't computer systems. This isn't a technical problem but a social/political one.
Then who should? Government, where each implementation strips away rights to privacy - which in some countries, including mine, are a constitutional right? Where it expands powers of government to track everyone's activity online - and remember we're one election away from total policy shift(just like with latest US elections)?
Free market? The profitable solution is, depending on environment - either ignore the problem(profit from ads served to children, no extra work necessary), or strip away all privacy (to filter out bots and get paid more per ad).
The sad reality is that "parent should take responsibility" is least bad option available, and takes into the account individual development of a child.
Even creation of a highly regulated child only internet creates more problems - as now that becomes a highly profitable target for bad actors(both individual abusers, and companies trying to serve ads)
Yet EU has overstepped that ages ago, and you can see that with SKG recently. The only tool we, as citizens, have to actually try to affect EC is effectively useless. EC can be wined and dined by lobbyists, including outside of official recorded proceedings(!) and can just ignore you.
Not to mention a lot of other systems in EU were made with idea that countries would operate for their own best interest, and that interest was aligned for every member state:
- Shared energy market, which was crashed by Germany ideologically decommissioning nuclear power plants in middle of energy crisis.
- Free movement of people within Schengen area - which is crashed by countries taking mass of immigrants which they think they need(i don't live there so i won't judge), but then they can move around whole of the area - including the countries with vastly stricter regulations for migration.
- Digital euro as a backdoor to enforce transition to euro across the whole area, limiting the ways in which member states can dictate their own monetary policy. Digital euro must be accepted by all vendors across EU - even in the countries not using euro at all.
And that's ignoring slippery slope towards CDBC with expiration date.
- erosion of free speech and constant doublethink language, and noticing flaws in EU is undemocratic/euroskeptical(biggest sin possible) - even if it comes from "how to improve EU" point of view. or even if one points out that EU itself isn't democratic.
- double loyalty in case of politicians where there's a conflict between national and European interest. Do you pursue national benefit, or do you go against it in such cases and hop onto EU track - where there are plenty of unelected positions?
and also double loyalty in case of EC members - they should pursue good of all EU by their own charter, but there's no punishment nor anything systemic to discourage them from abusing their power and pursuing national interests.
All of those are minor or major flaws that slowly fracture EU. And by this point I don't think the system can be reformed.
No. Because if you solve underlying tensions in society the so called russian propaganda has nothing to take hold on.
Also who and under what rules will decide which propaganda is allowed? is American propaganda fine? Chinese? Japanese? UAE?
Not only this creates dissident, and suppresses voices critical of current government. but also gives extraordinary power on level of soviet union to current government.
You might trust current EU to not abuse it, but it might take a single elections, or single term for un-elected(!) officials in EC for attidute to change.
Just like in US - a lot of powers were granted but suddenly there's a person willing to abuse them.
For that to be even considered in EU we would need a lot more check and balances - especially for European Comission and Council.
Another issue is - is EU a trade union or federation? if former - this is outside of EU's responsiblities and powers. if later - look at point above.
If you really wanted to solve this problem you would go after advertisers and data collection companies, and regulate them.
Like with normal cases - have court go over this.
But decision if any form of age lock should be implemented or not is up to parents. You cannot just shift argument to "you HAVE to restrict children from internet or else!"
Just because they don't charge you directly, doesn’t matter it's not profitable for them.
Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.
Because it focuses on technical aspects and accepts the premise of 'age verification must be solved'. It doesn’t, and discretion what content and and what age children and teenagers can consume should be up to parents.
Not government, nor corporations.
it's the fact that fines are part of agency's income and it is their best interest(as a bureaucratic agency) to keep them at highest level where companies will still pay them.
Effectively this makes this a tax, enshittifying everything even worse.
if fines were decoupled from agencies, and had exponentially rising curve for repeat offenses, i think that would work better than ban, as much i would prefer for them to get banned.
why would we need to fund and make Europen Alternative to Surveilance (tm) when we could just you know - not have it at all?
then you’re using different definition that everyone else, and bring nothing into discussion other than confusion.
>Or, put another way, you cannot "just change culture"
it isn't shaped just by technology. There are economic factors and cultural exchanges between different cultures.
This is purely tautological line of thinking, that brings nothing to discussion.