It’s not actually clear that it only affects huge companies. Much of open source AI today is done by working with models that have been released for free by large companies, and the concern was that the requirements in the bill would deter them from continuing to do this. Especially the “kill switch” requirement made it seem like the people behind the bill were either oblivious to this state of affairs or intentionally wanting to force companies to stop releasing the model weights and only offer centralized services like what OpenAI is doing.

Another reason right to repair is needed

If you are at the point where you are having to worry about government or corporate entities setting traps at the local library? You… kind of already lost.

What about just a blackmailer assuming anyone booting an OS from a public computer has something to hide? And then they have write access and there’s no defense, and it doesn’t have to be everywhere because people seeking privacy this way will have to be picking new locations each time. An attack like that wouldn’t have to be targeted at a particular person.

Isn’t it risky plugging usb drives into untrusted machines?

IIRC it spammed websites with traffic, didn’t conceal your IP at all, and some people got arrested for using it to make some websites go down for a very brief period. Basically a way to use people who didn’t know what they were doing as cannon fodder

Having an edgy opinion

I think people saying that stuff are serious about advocating for political violence. I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t make things worse. Violence is a core element of fascist ideology, there’s clear utility in using the attention it brings for recruiting, the trauma it inflicts for hazing, the experience for training. I remember when I saw a particular famous clip of a nazi speaking in public and being punched in the face by a masked assailant, I had never even heard his name before then, but after that clip was all over the internet that changed for a lot of people, and it definitely didn’t get him to shut up. Maybe there’s situations where people need to be defended, or there is need for someone acting as a bouncer, but I suspect in many cases it’s some combination of useful idiots giving them what they want, or extremists on the other side who share their goals of agitating for armed revolution giving them what they want.

Could you elaborate? Does HOA mean something different in other countries?

Home owner’s association; when you buy a house and it is part of a HOA, you have to sign a contract to join the HOA as a requirement of buying, which means you have to pay dues and abide by the rules of the organization, and you have to require the next buyer to also join in order to sell your house.

The detail that negative reviews warning of the danger kept getting removed or edited is really sinister

Nope definitely not why would I do that to myself

this will force us humans to go actually outside, make friends, form deep social relationship, and build lasting, resilient communities

There is no chance it goes that way, how is talking to people outside even an option for someone used to just being on the internet? Even if the content gets worse, the basic mechanisms to keep people scrolling still function, while the physical and social infrastructure necessary for in person community building is nonexistent.

I doubt the school administrators who would be buying this thing or the people trying to make money off it have really thought that far ahead or care whether or not it does that, but it would definitely be one of its main effects.

why are you judging peoples countries based on your view that governments shouldn’t force people to do things?

Because that’s what this thread is for, sharing thoughts on compulsory voting.

in fact you’re judging peoples’ lived experience and opinions based entirely on your own narrow views of government

Rather I’m saying that just because people approve of something doesn’t mean it’s good. If you think governments forcing people to do things is something to be embraced in general, and your lived experience with it is positive, that’s your opinion, which is fine, but it doesn’t mean that opinion is right.

yknow what else is good? taxes, fire services, disaster response, and dare i say - public healthcare and ambulances… all things im mandated to pay for along with everyone around me in case we ever need them

Agreed, but I think you’re papering over some important nuance in the position I’m expressing here. I see this sort of compulsory taxation and what it buys as an example of something where the need outweighs the harm. It is ok because of how important these services are, and despite the lesser harm of making people slightly less free. If all taxes rather went to building golden statues of the president, they would be bad.

My argument against compulsory voting is premised on the idea that reduced freedom is a harm, and must be justified by some good that sufficiently outweighs it. I haven’t made an argument supporting that premise, but I think it’s a sufficiently intuitive and popular sentiment that I shouldn’t have to. If you disagree with that premise, I think that just means we have very different values.

There are also countries with mandatory military service for all citizens where people there have a positive impression of the program and feel national pride about it, but I don’t think that necessarily means it is a good practice. I think anything the government is forcing people to do should meet a high bar of not being able to accomplish the same thing any other way, because freedom is important, whether or not people know to value it.

There are less coercive ways to remove barriers to voting. Some US states send everyone ballots in the mail and you have a long time to fill them out, which removes the need to go to a specific place on a specific day; all you have to do is fill it out and put it back in the mailbox. I think that kind of thing is a better option. There are situations where there are strong reasons civic participation has to be mandatory, like jury duty, but if the only real problem mandatory voting is meant to solve is life circumstances leading people to not bother voting, there are a lot of other plausibly effective steps that can be taken instead and it isn’t clearly necessary to do something that invasive.

I don’t have an issue with reasonable moderation, but I object to the idea that every pattern of moderation should just be accepted and that censorship isn’t a problem worth worrying about.

Reddit doesn’t have a modlog, so most of the removed comments are lost forever and there is no accountability for them, but a few of them can be seen through Reveddit, and the ones I see are not off topic or ideological rants. For instance the first one I see is

Are they going to shoot up the wrong car with innocent ladies in it again looking for this guy? Edit: Guess they managed to take him down without hitting any civilians, I guess good job for only killing the bad guy

Obviously referring to the Chris Dorner shootings which would be very relevant here, in a very reasonable way. I think it’s fair to assume that r/news moderators simply don’t want that guy mentioned at all.

It used to be a better place for arguments

I think it’s actually a serious problem if the most prominent places for discussion are heavily censored

IMO for some people arguing is a form of intimacy