Lifting the sanctions doesn't suddenly make their government, regulation or economy stable. Their biggest companies are all government-owned and famously corrupt and mismanaged.
This is criticism given from most of the region when the topic of lifting sanctions comes up. Nothing I said is novel or extreme.
In fact, we have direct evidence of what happens when those sanctions are lifted from when it was done under the Biden administration. They expanded their nuclear program and expanded funding to their regional proxies to carry out terror campaigns. The Houthis attacked global shipping lines and October 7th happened. That's not theoretical.
> Lifting the sanctions doesn't suddenly make their government, regulation or economy stable
True we only sanction them because it's funny.
I don't really care what descent you are, anyone can have a bad opinion of American foreign policy. There are tons of people right now in America who are Iranian that are screaming for a crazy monarch to take power.
It's fun to be reminded boards like this can have extremists that think they're in the majority.
Sanctions against Iran are imposed by the United Nations (also the US, UK and EU). That means that UN member states think that sanctions against Iran are politically palatable. It's definitionally mainstream opinion that Iran should be sanctioned.
This kind of legislation is frankly just bad. Any TV station in america could have broadcasted the worst things in the world to thousands of people affecting their lives together. You know how we handled that? Legislation on the broadcasters. We didn't stop kids from watching TV.
I'm not a fan of the law, but your argument is pretty weak. The dose makes the poison and all that. It seems rationale to believe that humans can construct an entertainment mechanism so addictive as to warrant safeguards. The debate is mostly around whether this is that point and whether the trade-offs are worth it.
...yes? Humans love their poisons even if it's not in their best interest to love them. It's all about giving people a fighting chance to make conscious decisions about how they want to live their life. If we crush a fledgling brain with social media before it's learned to fend for itself then we're removing true freedom of choice.
To me, it seems pretty analogous to alcohol, etc. You don't prohibit alcohol. You define an age in which you're willing to declare people mature enough to tolerate letting them make their own decisions.
Actually, we don't stop kids from buying cigarettes, we punish stores that sell cigarettes to kids and are caught! That's my entire point! You just made my argument for me!
And the store does not use facial recognition and/or checking id to know if the potential buyer is a kid ?
The only (huge) difference for me is the scale of the verification and how data are stored.
> And the store does not use facial recognition and/or checking id to know if the potential buyer is a kid?
They can just not serve cigarettes. In addition I think it's also insane to compare cigarettes, which are purely negative, to free internet usage which is massively net positive.
Despite the headline, does this law actually punish the children if they are caught with social media accounts? Or is the burden on the social media providers?
I have to assume this is a joke because that's absolutely ludicrous to claim and (if true) would mean the valuation of every social media company is so inflated as to constitute fraud.
TV the broadcast station was held responsible for the content they distributed and if they failed too much they would loose their access to the radio spectrum and unambiguous stop to exist.
The rules online is different. Not only are they not responsible for the content they distribute, but when they do break the law anyway the only punishment that they get is a small fine.
Around 30% of facebook advertisements are scams. That would not had worked with TV stations of old.
How do you compare a system where the communication channel goes only one way in a single country to a system where everyone potentially contributes to the content and is distributed over the world?
How does one country legislate the content of a company based in another country?
Do you think that censorship is a better solution?
Oh how's moderating and legislating social media behemots going so far?
Exactly..
They will use any trick or loophole available to keep the reach and to exploit attention spans.
Kids brains aren't correct really made for social media whatsoever. Ban is justified and the bar should be even higher than 15 years old, but it's a start.
I have a young baby and no way it touches anything smartphone related for many many years, same goes with TV to a certain extent (these things are like smartphones nowadays with all the apps and programme fighting for your attention and to enrage you). I am doing my part, I for sure expect the government does their thing as well.
Exploitators should stay in check and at bay with any means necessary
> Oh how's moderating and legislating social media behemots going so far?
This feels like you intended to make it a gotcha question, but the answer is: America isn't really trying to do that at all. So we should just give up?
"Damn, handling biowaste is hard and dangerous, what we'll do is just prevent people from leaving their house."
I'm not in America nor would I rely on their legislators doing anything about it, especially with current admin.
France, Australia and the likes (who are in process of implementing banning social media for kids) is the only way behemots will understand. Otherwise you're risking loopholes beig exploited, bureaucracy being slow while behemots move fast, etc.
Ban is pretty much self explanatory and leaves little room for interpretation, at least not in a way where 100s of pages of moderation guidelines and potential ambiguity such docs create
It's an education problem on two fronts. People inside the ecosystem need to know about it. And also people too deep in the elixir ecosystem who don't know how ad-hoc polymorphism is supposed to be used in a statically typed language.
Both overcome it by admitting they don't know and need to learn.
This attitude really tires open source maintainers enormously. They are not allowed to earn money connected to the thing they are giving away for free?
I know there may have been some weird stuff going on lately (nginx, redis, etc.) but this is not one of them.
It's okay to be confused, but please do not continue this.
This breaks down because Tailwind is not monetized, is completely free, and hasn't indicated it won't be.
There is a corporate side with other features that has never been free. I pay for it because it's great.
I'm not sure if you're purposefully misstating it at this point or not. Several people have corrected you and you seem to double down incorrectly each time.
Yes, I have no idea who's this magical "we" in your "We can simply". To me this seems like a textbook coordination problem leading to a tragedy of the commons- even if you got 99.9% of the world into your "we", the remaining "defectors" would have a massive benefit from using AI to replace human labor.
No, I have the same question as that other poster. It is not a bad faith question.
There are a lot of problems that would be solved immediately if "we" (i.e. all of humanity, or all of the U.S. or some other country) decided collectively to do something: climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation, war, and so on. But that's effectively wishing for magic -- there is no way to get everyone to collectively agree on something, so unless you explain how to cope with that fact, you haven't actually made any progress.
Given that I personally don't control humanity as a hive mind, what can I do to fix this problem? You haven't proposed an answer to that.
the strong interpretation is that you mean we gotta do something. and it's really not "simply" even because "we" needs to include everyone and whoever is a renegade will get more benefit.
so if "say" is an euphemism for "do" it seems an obvious question what exactly do we "do". that's another reason why it's not "simply". even if everybody was ready to do something as one, if you think everybody just knows what we should do because it's so obvious you'r mistaken.
sure it's asked a bit sarcastic but sarcasm isn't banned right?
Not only can we not just do that (you did not even define what you mean), but China is coming out with models that are good enough for this purpose - and they are, because they are open, everywhere.
Indeed we need to revolt against AI and force every other big powerful nation to do the same thing. Yet unfortunately that seems like a big joke until AI has destroyed their society too.
reply