Maybe, but nobody cares when you call them facists so I’m not sure what the best move is.
I do actually think the weirdness argument does probably play to the suburban traditional values types who want to believe they’re the normal ones and everyone else is going crazy.
I think at least some of it is because republicans already call democrats corrupt and criminal. When the dems come back and make the same accusations it just looks like bickering. Ideally the substance of such claims would matter but current political discourse in the US prioritizes sound bites and quips
You keep referring to this as revenge porn which to me is a case where someone spreads nudes around as a way to punish their current or former partner. You could use AI to generate material to use as revenge porn, but I bet most AI nudes are not that.
Think about a political comic showing a pro-corporate politician performing a sex act with Jeff bezos. Clearly that would be protected speech. If you generate the same image with generative AI though then suddenly it’s illegal even if you clearly label it as being a parody. That’s the concern. Moreover, the slander/libel angle doesn’t make sense if you include a warning that the image is generated, as you are not making a false statement.
To sum up why I think this bill is kinda weird and likely to be ineffective, it’s perfectly legal for me to generate and distribute a fake ai video of my neighbor shooting a puppy as long as I don’t present it as a real video. If I generate the same video but my neighbor’s dick is hanging out, straight to jail. It’s not consistent.
Do you know what enthusiasm means? The article you linked has a number of examples of what data might lead someone to believe in the increased enthusiasm. Did you read it?
That’s arguably a better rule than the more traditional flat-fee penalties, as it curbs the impulse to treat violations as cost-of-business. A firm that makes $1B/year isn’t going to blink at a handful of $1000 judgements.
No argument there but it reinforces my point that this law is written for Taylor swift and not a random high schooler.
You’d be liable for producing an animated short staring “Definitely Not Mickey Mouse” under the same reasoning.
Except that there are fair use exceptions specifically to prevent copyright law from running afoul of the first amendment. You can see the parody exception used in many episodes of south park for example and even specifically used to depict Mickey Mouse. Either this bill allows for those types of uses in which case it’s toothless anyway or it’s much more restrictive to speech than existing copyright law.
It seems like the bill is being pitched as protecting women who have fake nudes passed around their school but the text of the bill seems more aimed at the Taylor swift case.
1 The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”
2 The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant
The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law. That seems at odds with the 1st amendment.
I guess this mostly means figuring out how to do it with the minimum amount of chaos, but the clock is ticking and I’m not sure what he can really do beyond deciding on an endorsement and writing a speech.
I mean nobody really wants Kamala but it sounds like that may be the best path. It’s one thing to have the president step down for health reasons, but it’s another to unilaterally replace the candidate after the primary as a response to bad polling.
If the second case happens you’ll see a bunch of pushback from democrats who don’t like the pick, donors who backed Biden, and virtually every Republican trying to portray the democrats in a negative light. That’s just the PR angle ignoring that there will also be legal questions around using Bidens donation money and getting a different candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
Yeah, that does feel like it could help reduce housing prices. There is no such tax in most parts of the US, but San Francisco passed a vacancy tax that just went into effect this year. If that works out hopefully other municipalities look into a similar scheme.
Are corporations more likely to be slumlords? Pretty much everyone I’ve ever known who owns a rental property has been a complete asshole, but I’ve only known a few.
Owning part of a larger building is actually much more complicated than simply owning a house. I’m not sure everyone would actually want that even if they could buy the unit they live in at a low price.
Generally it’s not destroying undeveloped land, but fixing up dilapidated houses so that they are livable.
Having a progressive tax based on number of homes owned may work, but you would need to rewrite quite a bit of real estate law to make it actually effective. Obviously corporations would not be allowed to own houses to avoid people owning through shell companies, but you would also have to draw a line so corporations could own larger apartment complexes and mixed use buildings. You also do want builders to be able to temporarily own houses for the purpose of building and selling them as well as corporate flippers.
Frankly, I think it’s too complicated to expect on a national level.
I feel like banning corporations from owning housing isn’t the panacea people expect it to be. It’s pretty impractical when you start talking about larger buildings and mixed use housing, and I’m not convinced it’s really a big driver of the problem.
I think a steep land value tax is a more workable solution. It incentivizes anyone who holds non-productive property (vacant homes in this case) to either make better use of the land or sell it. This also has the benefit of impacting individuals who own second homes or have mostly empty airbnbs.
Property taxes are insufficient for this purpose because they are generally based on the value of the home rather than just the land, so not only are they easier to game, but it disincentivizes improving the property.
He has been a terrible candidate though. If the polling is accurate and trump has a slight lead in popular vote, Biden has less than a 5% chance of winning the election (according to Nate Silver’s models). Unfortunately, this is probably optimistic as polling has overestimated the democratic vote in the last 2 presidential elections including the one that included these same two candidates.
True, but I feel like people have been talking past each other about this.
On the one hand, you have people saying Biden’s cabinet would do a better job than Trump, which is true. On the other hand, you have people saying Biden is going to lose to trump unless he somehow makes a dramatic turnaround in the next couple months, which is also true according to all available data.
The real question isn’t whether Biden is better than trump, it’s whether Biden would serve the country better by stepping down.
In my experience most Starbucks workers will just let you say small/medium/large without questioning it.