This makes sense. They previously set up an AI voice of his for these situations, but when he heard it he didn't like how he sounds so made them make him sound "manlier". Then they need to use it and it ends up not fooling anyone for the very obvious reasons.
Without legislation forcing it, why would they bother? They already have enough separation from the crimes to avoid legal repercussions, and they get to sell data with the "this will be used for profitable criminal activity" premium baked into the original sale price.
It's like expecting Nestle to take any steroids action (weird auto-correct) to prevent child slavery. Why are they going to stir the pot and screw up the nice thing they have going?
The smart move would be for just every single one of them to spend the whole debate dunking on him. Then the next day he goes to jail like a wounded puppy (of they sent wounded puppies to jail....I lost the metaphor).
There's a thing that cult leaders often do where they make increasingly stricter demands on their followers, it reduces the number of members, but the one who remain are much more easily controlled (because they self selected for that trait. I think something similar is part of the picture for these companies. The people who simply do as they are told and come back (as opposed to looking for new jobs) are more easily controlled by the company.
Also you can't always assume that just because a company is really big it's always making the most best, always correct choices. Like GE managed with "vitality curves."
The King of Jordan approved a bill Saturday to punish online speech deemed harmful to national unity, according to the Jordanian state news agency, legislation that has drawn accusations from human rights groups of a crackdown on free expression in a country where censorship is on the rise.
Okay, so it's not all online speech, just those statements that the government deems harmful without any clarity on what specifically that would entail. Just some good old-fashioned fascism right here.
The way the law is set up (and thus the reason the lawyers are arguing it) is that you can't sue your employer for a workplace injury, it is purely a workers compensation (insurance) claim, and those do not pay any millions of dollars, and also the school would be covered by their insurance.
These people know that everyone knows they can't be trusted, so they set up these weird rules that I guess they assume are what normal virtuous people do.
It's like proving you're not an alcoholic by showing everyone you're throwing out all the alcohol in your house. Sure that's good I guess, but normal people don't have to do that in the first place, and also nothing that you did actually prevents you from completely going back on your word.
This makes sense. They previously set up an AI voice of his for these situations, but when he heard it he didn't like how he sounds so made them make him sound "manlier". Then they need to use it and it ends up not fooling anyone for the very obvious reasons.