It's really the same enshittification trajectory everywhere: Once it's been turned into a commercial product, the optimization of rent seeking gradually displaces all other purposes.

Bookmarked that link.

If I invent a new gun, we don't need new regulation to say that killing someone with it is illegal. The cyberterrorism that the big LLM providers commit is already illegal in current law and nobody does anything about it. New regulation won't change that, it would only protect these criminals from their competition.

Allegedly.

Don't open yourself up to charges of hilarity.

That would make all the spying and surveillance harder and thereby reduce profits. And profit reduction is really the worst attack risk of all.

Here you are: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50027118

It's a rogue court in that it's not derived from the will of the people. In democracy, the people are sovereign and have a say in what their laws are. American[1] citizens don't have a say in what international laws are, they can't invalidate them, so why should they be subject to them?

This is akin to the Nuremberg trials, where Germans were tried by foreigners, without the consent of German citizens... The major difference is, the Germans lost the war so Americans got to impose their will on the vanquished. America did not lose a war to India, so why should Americans be judged by this Indian?

[1]: I'm not American, but like the US, I also wish my country was only subject to the laws of my people.

So much about the Trump administration is best understood, for everyone looking at it inside and outside the country, as criminals taking over the justice system.

What's probably as criminal, are the other two branches not stamping this out. Most of what everyone is despairing or angry about the administration is forbidden by the US constitution. The problem is that the people most able to uphold the constitution, by expunging the criminals in the executive branch (or preventing them from being there in the first place), are not enforcing it.

Why do you call Rubio a committed criminal? To my knowledge, he isn't.

R.I.P.

It's hardly the "freely communicating" part that's harming democracy. I find it hard to believe you're making this argument in good faith.

"Free communication" is specifically held up as a threat to democracy by current leaders in quite a few states. For instance, Macron and Merz in France and Germany have both recently explictly comdemned free communication, that isn't filtered and gatekept by some "common framework" or government agency, as a threat to democracy. Probably because this communication is producing social movements in these countries that the state cannot control.

And if this isn't US-centric enough for you, the previous US administration created a "Disinformation Governance Board" specifically to address the threats that they felt free communication among the people was posing to democracy, taking action to pressure corporate actors to censor disfavored popular speech in attempt to circumvent first amendment protections. At least the current administration isn't really pretending that attacking free speech is protecting democracy somehow.

Indeed, it's all beancounters and lawyers now, just as with any other run-of-the-mill monster corporation.