• 2 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle




  • In addition to what @LwL said - It has to do with how testing is done, and that some diseases can’t really be tested for. It is quite expensive, and is generally done on small samples from lots of people mixed together. If it is positive they split the batch and test again (look up binary search).

    The lower the incidence rate of diseases, the larger batches can be done. Ditching certain denographics with significantly higher risks for certain diseases can make testing orders of magnitudes cheaper and faster. (Other groups, at least where I live, include people who recently changed partner, recently went abroad, have ever gotten a blood transfusion, have gone through a recent surgery, have recently been sick, etc. etc.)



  • The court’s order for an injunction applies only to the sections relating to defining and reporting data on content violation categories. Social media companies will still be under the remainder of AB 587’s requirements, which include semi-annually creating publicly viewable reports to California on the current terms of service, how automated systems enforce the terms of service, how companies respond to user-reported violations, and what actions the companies take against violators.

    Seems like the higher courts ruling is sensible overall.




  • Iceblade@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Your comment makes it apparent that you fundamentally do not even understand what censorship is. Legality has nothing to do with what censorship is and everything to do with limiting freedom of communication. Even something as basic (and undeniably both good and necessary) as taking down cp content is censorship.

    In my view, censorship is inherently good only in limited circumstances, usually involving either that A) The very creation of the content is irreversably harmful (see above) or B) The content is highly intrusive (essentially forcing the audience to partake) in combination with consumption of said content being irreversably harmful (consider regulation of advertising in public spaces).

    Historically, freedom of communication and organization has been the primary antidote to many authoritarian organizations (organized religions, autocratic monarchies, fascist & totalitarian regimes, corrupt leaders etc.), and this necessarily requires that centralized institutions cannot (in general) be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable discourse - that includes regulating “disinformation” outside of limited scopes.

    Fundamentally, if our leaders say we are incapable of discerning fact from fiction, and rob us of that autonomy, they are also robbing us of our ability to freely choose our leaders, effectively demolishing democracy.


  • I’ve written more than enough to mysteriously fall out a window in Russia or disappear into a “reeducation” camp in the PRC.

    However, if you crave the boot of censorship so much, why not try it? Trade places with one of the more than billion people chafing under it in one form or another and we’ll see if you can report back after a month or two.