Sounds very technical, but it's a decades-old federal law that protects tech companies from lawsuits over what users post on their sites. And for years, the law made it nearly impossible to win a successful civil lawsuit against a tech company.
This seems like a loophole to shift liability away from companies like Meta. This protects companies over the consumer.
deliberately designing a product in a way that, you know, violates consumer protection laws. Some observers are likening these suits to the lawsuits of the 1990s against Big Tobacco.
This claims that Meta is violating consumer protection laws failing to care for their users. I never though of social media like Big Tobacco but I can see the similarities. Both have negative effects on users personal health and wellbeing.
these features got teens hooked. And the states say Meta knew that teens' self-esteem would suffer once they got addicted to Facebook and Instagram.
The features they created to keep users hooked are actually some of the most detrimental to users health.
Forty-one states are suing Meta for allegedly designing products that addict teens and worsen their mental health.
Shows that teen mental health is an issue across the country.
13% of Instagram users — ages 13-15 — reported having received unwanted sexual advances on the platform within the previous seven days.
I think the most concerning part is that the question asks if the harassment occured in the last seven day not for example the last year.
“I can safely say that Meta’s executives knew the harm that teenagers were experiencing, that there were things that they could do that are very doable and that they chose not to do them,” Béjar told The Associated Press. This, he said, makes it clear that “we can’t trust them with our children.”
Seems that he ias sort of fear mongering to try are get parents attention. It is clear there is a problem but it is not clear what the best solution to the issue is.
“She reported these incidents to the company and it did nothing.”
The platform has a way to report issues and harassment but nothing is done when a user creates a report. What is the point of having a report system if you are not going to do anything about it.
But he said his concerns and warnings went unheeded. And on Tuesday, it was Béjar’s turn to testify to Congress.
Facebook either does not care or is indifferent to the harm it causes it's users as long as they still log back on the next day.
"It's time that the public and parents understand the true level of harm posed by these 'products'
I believe that many parents are aware of the harm social media has on their children. But I wonder if people who are less involved with tech are aware of the growing problem.
Bejar told senators he met regularly with senior executives at the company, including Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, and considered them supportive of the work at the time. However, he concluded subsequently that the executives had decided "time and time again to not tackle this issue," he testified.
Seems like Facebook was aware of the harm it was causing to young people and choose to ignore the problem. Seems extremely unethical.
Bejar's testimony comes amid a bipartisan push in Congress to pass legislation that would require social media platforms to provide parents with tools to protect children online.
I think it is interesting that there is support to on both sides of the aisle to reduce the harm that facebook and instagram cause on teens. When both sides agree on something I usually consider it a serious problem.
. Returning to thephotography analogy, the AI’s creator might be compared to the camera maker, while the AI user whoprompts the creation of a specific work might be compared to the photographer who uses that camera tocapture a specific image.
I made the argument earlier that whoever made the AI should have the right to copyright what the AI creates. But I like the argument that the AI creator is like the maker of a camera and not the photographer.
a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Copyright Office. Thecourt held that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim,” reasoning that onlyhuman authors need copyright as an incentive to create works
The courts seem to agree with the Copyright office's belief that humans are an essential part of a copyright claim.
“authorship.”
This goes back to the argument that human authorship is the bedrock of copyright law.
AI defendants have said that the use of training data scraped from the internet to train their systems qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law.
It is clear that some form of regulation needs to be created otherwise both sides will just keep going back and forth as the both believe they are right.
The press release did not mention Google's more well-known generative AI chatbot program Bard.
Seems they are still hesitant to limit the info that feeds their bigger AI money makers.
incorporate it into their products. Prominent writers, illustrators and other copyright owners have said in several lawsuits that both the use of their work to train the AI systems and the content the systems create violate their rights.
Similar to the other article that I was reading that talked about how there are issues with how AI is being trained.
Howell agreed with the Copyright Office and said human authorship is a "bedrock requirement of copyright" based on "centuries of settled understanding."
Human authorship is key thats why I believe the humans that wrote the code for the AI should have the right to copyright what the AI creates. You can argue that it is an extension of their original creation.
Several pending lawsuits have also been filed over the use of copyrighted works to train generative AI without permission.
I think its interesting that the issue is not just the art being created but also where the AI is getting its inspiration from.
A work of art created by artificial intelligence without any human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law, a U.S. court in Washington, D.C., has ruled
I believe that if the person created the AI that created the art they should be able to copyright said art.
But there was still disagreement, attendees said. Mr. Zuckerberg highlighted open-source research and development of A.I., which means that the source code of the underlying A.I. systems are available to the public.
I think there are both pros and cons to having open sources but I think there could be some compromise that allows for closed source depending on the task being preformed by the AI
While Europe has been in the throes of drafting laws to regulate A.I., the United States has lagged. But the frenzy has prompted the White House, Congress and regulatory agencies to start responding in recent months with A.I. safeguards and other measures.
I don't understand how the U.S. can be lagging behind in regulation if many of the leaders in the innovation of AI tech are based out of the U.S.
Elon Musk warned of civilizational risks posed by artificial intelligence. Sundar Pichai of Google highlighted the technology’s potential to solve health and energy problems.
There are a wide variety of areas where AI can be applied not just in social media
AI and social media go hand in hand to improve marketing operations and provide better user experiences.
it seems like without AI social media as we know it today wouldn't be the same
The possibility of algorithmic bias, which may result in the unjust treatment of particular groups of individuals, is one of the major issues
It is important that developers figure out a way to remove bias from the AIs they are creating
AI has become a significant part of the major social networks that contribute massively to managing this vast data coming to social media platforms.
Because so much data is being collected some form of AI is probably necessary in order to process and transform the data into something understandable and useful
"It's important for us to have a referee," Musk told reporters, comparing it to sports. The billionaire, who also owns the social media platform X, added that a regulator would "ensure that companies take actions that are safe and in the interest of the general public."
I think its good that many of the leaders of AI want some form of regulation
Lawmakers are seeking ways to mitigate dangers of the emerging technology
The word 'danger' highlights the fear that people have when it comes to AI
Elon Musk called on Wednesday for a U.S. "referee"
Surprising considering the way he runs X