Contravariant

Well, who did you trust to build your hardware?

Lenovo definitely deserves to be banned after that shit they pulled with the malicious root certificates.

That same description applies to downloading a zipped file.

Reminds me of the time I did roughly the same thing trying to get people to move away from internet explorer.

I won't pretend that its popularity is in any way proportional to its quality, but I enjoyed it and so did many others so she must have done something right. Calling a work that many people enjoy trash just sounds a bit elitist to me.

Feel free to call the author whatever you want though, at this point I've no respect left for her.

Just so I got this clear, making it illegal to tell advertisers when their ads are running next to dangerous or illegal content is a freedom of speech win?

The biggest number that can be defined in fewer than twenty words.

Please tell me someone thought about a switch to take them offline.

I think humans are mostly carbon-neutral, but decomposition might release gasses that are worse than just CO2. Burning them directly would probably be better.

The reason they have to include the type of tech in the law is because that tech made it possible for unskilled bad actors to get on it

Yeah, and that's the part I don't like. If you can't define why it's bad without taking into account the skill level of the criminal then I'm not convinced it's bad.

As you point out defamation is already illegal and deliberately spreading false information about someone with the intent to harm their reputation is obviously wrong and way easier to define.

And is that not why you consider a painting less 'bad'? Because it couldn't be misconstrued as evidence? Note that the act explicitly says a digital forgery should be considered a forgery even when it's made abundantly clear that it's not authentic.

Fair, but then this law serves no purpose. The thing it was designed to prevent was already illegal.

The worrying aspect of these laws are always that they focus too much on the method. This law claims to be about preventing a particular new technology, but then goes on to apply to all software.

And frankly if you need a clause about how someone is making fake pornography of someone then something is off. Something shouldn't be illegal simply because it is easy.

Deepfakes shouldn't be any more or less illegal than photos made of a doppelgänger or an extremely photorealistic painting (and does photorealism even matter? To the victims, I mean.). A good law should explain why those actions are illegal and when and not just restrict itself to applying solely to 'technology' and say oh if it only restricts technology then we should be all right.