> Meta should exit the US too because the US does {x} that I don't agree with.
This can be a real argument and conversation but we would need to know what {x} is and the causal chain that leads the world to be better after Meta leaves the US.
Open ai and similar companies could open the doors to academic researchers to figure out the stats of help vs harm. It is not going to be a short term and perhaps not long term profit center though.
> I don't buy that chatGPT is actually doing these users any harm.
For me to buy this as true I would expect that those people would be as well off or as bad off if chatGPT was in their life or not.
I expect that some people are worse off with chatGPT in their life.
Responsibility for that harm is a different question though. Some people are also better of without cars in their life and we let the government laws sort that out.
Getting openAI and similar companies to act in mitigating these harms serves at least a few purposes; reducing the overall harm in the world, reducing/limiting future government regulation, maximizing the adoption of ai tools, potentially increasing long term profits of the companies in question.
I have a CO2 detector at home and bought some for family members, but I have never had a portable one so they stay at home. Some of the high CO2 ppm numbers in the article make me want to double check them. My vague understanding form reading the manual of the one I bought and watching how the numbers can be thrown off by cleaning products used near them make me wonder how much these high numbers are from sources other than CO2. That said I would still suspect that the a good chunk of the relative differences would be from CO2 changes.
You may have a sensor that estimates CO2 based on measured total volatile organic components. These are called eCO2 sensors, and were used instead of the gold standard NDIR sensors due to cost.
> In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic I learned that we can estimate our level of risk by checking the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, because when infected people breathe out virus aerosols, they also breathe out CO2.
The above is from the author early on. So they go out of their way to point out that it is an estimate and also point out the mechanism that allows it work as an estimate in some conditions. "when infected people breathe out virus aerosols, they also breathe out CO2."
The article does not reenforce this through out the article though and leaves it to the reader to keep in mind.
> Why carbon dioxide? Because everyone who exhales COVID (or flu, or RSV) aerosols also exhales carbon dioxide, and good ventilation removes both disease aerosols and CO2. Under many conditions, the concentration of CO2 particles in a space can give us an idea of how much risk there is of catching or passing on a respiratory disease.
> Unfortunately, the relationship between the numbers on a carbon dioxide monitor and the disease risk is complicated, so there are some things to know if you want to do your own monitoring.
Unlike the California law, I seemed to be in the minority in this opinion, this one does seem to require programs like grep to ask for a users age bracket.
> (b) An operator shall request a signal with respect to a
particular user from an operating system provider or a covered
application store when the application is downloaded and
launched.
Unlike the California law I do not see anything that restricts this to child accounts only.
So let say I have a program:
print("Hello, World!")
and I want to publish it to say npm or nixos, or some linux distribution. Not with out violating this law. This application needs to request the users age brackets at least at 'downloaded and launched' optimistically that means once on first launch, but potentially needs to be requested on each launch of the application. So lets fix the program
I think that main goal would be to keep the ability to have accounts be anonymous or pseudo anonymous.
If social mean company has to verify an accounts age themselves they then have to use some for of official government identification and with that any chance of anonymous or pseudo anonymous access.
Facebook has less than zero interest in allowing people to use their platform anonymously. They very much want to know everything about their users including their age and they would never back a law that would stop them from collecting that data. Now that you know that facebook isn't pushing this law to protect anyone's anonymity why do you think they're doing it?
> Now that you know that facebook isn't pushing this law to protect anyone's anonymity why do you think they're doing it?
My comment was not about what I knew/know about facebook or not. I was answering the question of why age verification should be externalized to a degree and in this case externalized means the power stays with the user and parents rather than being in the hands of say facebook/meta.
I was not talking about why facebook/meta would want it or not want it. Large companies want lots of different things. Sometimes it is required to know their motivations to discuss or decide on something. I think it can be detrimental to do that though without discussing/analyzing a topic/idea on its own merits first or at least parallel. My comment was focused on the merits not the motivations or desires of companies like facebook.
The point is that you can't just externalize age verification and expect that data to never be sent to facebook because facebook needs that data to do anything (good or bad). It doesn't matter if your OS broadcasts that your child is 6-9 to facebook or if facebook has to ask the government to tell them that same information, either way, in the end facebook will know that your child is 6-9. The power is then in facebook's hands. Facebook won't see a copy of their government issued ID, but what difference does that make when they've got their age, their selfies, and a list of every friend and family member.
> The point is that you can't just externalize age verification and expect that data to never be sent to facebook
facebook and similar social media companies have a ton of ways to get peoples age and or to narrow it down.
> either way, in the end facebook will know that your child is 6-9.
The main point of the law is not about restricting facebook or similar operator in the laws lanuage from knowing user ages. Though the does say the age bracket can not be used for anything other than to implement the intent of the law.
> The power is then in facebook's hands. Facebook won't see a copy of their government issued ID, but what difference does that make when they've got their age, their selfies, and a list of every friend and family member.
May not matter much for facebook or similar, it matters a bunch for any random website/forum/service you might sign up for where the intent of the service is not about public posting that sort of personal infromation.
> facebook and similar social media companies have a ton of ways to get peoples age and or to narrow it down... May not matter much for facebook or similar, it matters a bunch for any random website/forum/service you might sign up for
You're right about that. There are websites and services that won't have the kind of data needed to identify an individual using the age bracket data, and there are those who could do it anyway or could make some guesses about the ages of users even without having OS gathered age data sent to them. That said, I've seen how bad companies are at making those kinds of assumptions. For example, I've seen youtube's AI age guesser fail completely and mischaracterize viewers ages in both directions.
> Though the does say the age bracket can not be used for anything other than to implement the intent of the law.
I didn't see that anywhere in the text. It does have a section where it says that the age data collected can't be shared with third parties unless they're made a part of the implementation of age-check scheme. There's also this: "All information collected for the purpose of obtaining the verifiable parental consent required under this Section shall not be used for any purpose other than obtaining verifiable parental consent and shall be deleted immediately after an attempt to obtain verifiable parental consent" but it's entirely unclear if age bracket data is considered part of the data collected when "obtaining verifiable parental consent". I suspect that it isn't and this language is intended to protect the data of the adults who will be forced to prove they are the child's parents. In fact they don't define at all what "obtaining verifiable parental consent" should or shouldn't involve.
You are right it is hard to use it for anything else though given the constraints.
> An operator that receives a signal in accordance with 20this Section shall use that signal to comply with this Section 21but shall not: 22 (1) request more information from an operating system 23 provider or a covered application store than the minimum 24 amount of information necessary to comply with this 25 Section;
You know the age bracket but nothing else and are not allowed to store more data on the topic to figure anything out. So you can not legally figure out someones age by keeping track of when they change age brackets.
> In fact they don't define at all what "obtaining verifiable parental consent" should or shouldn't involve.
It is the "Account holder". The user that set up the account and provide the age is considered the parent or legal guardian.
This can be a real argument and conversation but we would need to know what {x} is and the causal chain that leads the world to be better after Meta leaves the US.
reply