Deciding what we want as a society is fine. Vehemently disagreeing over what and how things should be regulated is fine too. In general, trying to do anything in good faith is more or less fine.

What is not fine is proposing to make regulations that purport to do things that are near-universally supported, but in reality further agendas that are widely opposed, agendas that work against the interests of the American people and would never pass otherwise.

That is very clearly what is happening here, and we know that because it happens all the time, using the same tried-and-true formula. In particular, anything claiming to "protect the children" is almost certainly an obfuscated attempt to erode civil rights protections like free speech or privacy, and should be treated with extreme prejudice.

*edit* Also, anything Rahm Emmanuel says, believe the exact opposite.

I agree with the sentiment, but the rights of Americans are being eroded at a comical rate with no positives like protecting children (be that an allusion to protecting them or actually doing it)

Look at the TikTok “ban” for example. Congress passed a law to ban it because they didn’t have control over what the population was seeing, specifically around the genocide in Gaza. Now US ownership has passed to Larry Ellison, a republican connected pro-Zionist that will make sure the objectionable content that shows Palestinian's suffering does not bubble up in the algorithm. Never mind that you see 10 year old girls practicing TikTok dances when they are standing in line, waiting for the bus, etc. That problem persists, and no one in leadership cares because now the right people are getting rich and censoring the actual content the rulers cared about.

I’m with you on Rahm, but I’m not going to let him trying to hook his wagon to a policy that I support ruin my support of it.

If I knew absolutely nothing about TPM other than the circumstances in which it was made (who, what, why, when) I would have predicted from that alone that it wouldn't benefit consumers, wouldn't be secure, and that it was motivated by business, not technology.

A tall order, and that's if you can even find it.

Insane that this is from 2021 and I've only found out about it now. The Internet is slowly but inexorably getting locked down, and the bitter reality is, there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Timelines and streams won't catch gaps in information like that.

You'd need something like an index or an archive. Something you can catch up on while skipping what you have seen.

I don't disagree. But to be clear, I wasn't surprised that I missed it on HN, but that I missed it period. There was a time not so long ago when such a thing would be inconceivable.

It was published in 2021… is this a conspiracy that somehow it’s been kept off hacker news for 4 years?

More likely you just didn’t notice when it was published.

Indeed, it would be a hard sell to suggest otherwise.

But for me not to have heard of it at all, period, in four years? I was surprised. But not that surprised, which is even more telling.

I don't think they were implying anything other than surprise that they missed it. Obviously not everyone is on the site every day so the concept of a "dupe" is really a leaky abstraction, and all the passive aggressive comments calling out dupes and old content are annoying and misguided.

What the actual fuck?

People think the earth is flat—does Generative AI threaten our core understanding of astrophysics?

If flat-earthers had the numbers and motivation of revisionist neo-nazis, they might very well be able to decrease popular (not academic) understanding of astrophysics.

I need to know the outcome of this argument, and also the mistaken party's ultimate response to said outcome—whether he concedes gracefully, quietly ghosts away, commences all-out holy war perhaps—that I may quietly judge his character thereupon.

I would read a novel written by you. good sir.