There’s no telling how much it would be worth since there’s no active market for it, the NFT has been owned by the same wallet since its purchase in 2021 and has not been transferred or resold. That wallet currently has minimal value in Ethereum or tokens, and around 2k different NFTs, most of which don’t seem to be very valuable. They are still active, with a transaction from a month ago moving 264k in stablecoins to a crypto exchange.

• https://etherscan.io/nft/0x3B3ee1931Dc30C1957379FAc9aba94D1C48a5405/25046

• https://opensea.io/3FMusic/collected

Almost anything else or nonexistent. Maybe a way of filtering lazy, unhelpful, or uncivil comments. Downvotes being a disagree button just seems blatantly toxic. Expressing disagreements calls for using actual words.

Reddiquette was the worst thing that ever happened to internet culture

I can agree that they end up being a disagree button in practice, but you’re saying they should be a disagree button?

But most of the claims I’m talking about, which aren’t specifically about Falun Gong, seem to be sourced from more mainstream sources, and are mostly based on official statements by the Chinese government.

Ah, fair enough, I guess whether this is actually happening is a disputed point. Still, from the article it seems like it is not that much of a stretch from what apparently is not disputed about China’s organ transplant practices, which is that there is a lot of organ transplanting going on in China despite a culturally driven absence of voluntary donations, a legalized practice of using the organs of executed prisoners which is officially acknowledged as the primary source of organs, and a market driven method for obtaining them with little accountability.

The commercial trade in human organs has also been a lucrative source of revenue for the Chinese medical, military and public security establishments.[26][27] Because there is no effective nationwide organ donation or allocation system, hospitals source organs from local brokers, including through their connections to courts, detention centers and prisons.[28]

If it’s true that people with the authority to execute prisoners can easily get money by selling their body parts, and there isn’t much oversight, it seems like a natural consequence that they might let financial considerations influence when and maybe even whether to kill these prisoners.

Is that supposed to make this practice less horrifying

do they need to? I don’t think so.

Why not? How can you be sure that all these laws are going to be about all the same things and not have many tricky edge cases? What would keep them from being like that? Again, these laws give unique rights to residents of their respective states to make particular demands of websites, and they aren’t copy pastes of each other. There’s no documented ‘best practices’ that is guaranteed to encompass all of them.

they don’t want this solution, however, but in my understanding instead to force every state to have weaker privacy laws

I can’t speak to what they really want privately, but in the industry letter linked in the article, it seems that the explicit request is something like a US equivalent of the GDPR:

A national privacy law that is clear and fair to business and empowering to consumers will foster the digital ecosystem necessary for America to compete.

To me that seems like a pretty sensible thing to be asking for; a centrally codified set of practices to avoid confusion and complexity.

In 2022, industry front groups co-signed a letter to Congress arguing that “[a] growing patchwork of state laws are emerging which threaten innovation and create consumer and business confusion.” In 2024, they were at it again this Congress, using the term four times in five paragraphs.

Big Tobacco did the same thing.

Is this really a fair comparison though? A variety of local laws about smoking in restaurants makes sense because restaurants are inherently tied to their physical location. A restaurant would only have to know and follow the rules of their town, state and country, and the town can take the time to ensure that its laws are compatible with the state and country laws.

A website is global. Every local law that can be enforced must be followed, and the burden isn’t on legislators to make sure their rules are compatible with all the other rules. Needing to make a subtly different version of a website to serve to every state and country to be in full compliance with all their different rules, and needing to have lawyers check over all of them would create a situation where the difficulty and expense of making and maintaining a website or other online service is prohibitive. That seems like a legitimate reason to want unified standards.

To be fair there are plenty of privacy regulations that this wouldn’t apply to, like the example the article gives of San Francisco banning the use of facial recognition tech by police. But the industry complaint linked in the article references laws like https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa and https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-190 that obligate websites to fulfill particular demands made by residents of those states respectively. Subtle differences in those sorts of laws seems like something that could cause actual problems, unlike differences in smoking laws.

changing how its “block” button works. That option previously allowed users to hide their profile from certain accounts – but will no longer do so.

So I guess all that stuff they did to lock down the ability to see things on Xitter without an account was strictly for evil then

If you are at the point where you are having to worry about government or corporate entities setting traps at the local library? You… kind of already lost.

What about just a blackmailer assuming anyone booting an OS from a public computer has something to hide? And then they have write access and there’s no defense, and it doesn’t have to be everywhere because people seeking privacy this way will have to be picking new locations each time. An attack like that wouldn’t have to be targeted at a particular person.

Isn’t it risky plugging usb drives into untrusted machines?

I bet it was something like the hardware id instead but she misspoke

I liked The Yellow Wallpaper

I doubt the school administrators who would be buying this thing or the people trying to make money off it have really thought that far ahead or care whether or not it does that, but it would definitely be one of its main effects.

I wonder if part of the reason for supporting this is that they like the secondary effect that all this information is now also available to governments

Can’t track mouse movements on mobile though

Obligatory LLMs see tokens not letters

The profit they get from the sale of the television should be enough that they don’t have to make the television shit to get slightly more profit, why do people even buy these

But televisions cost hundreds of dollars at least

“each new connected TV platform user generates around $5 per quarter in data and advertising revenue.”

Sounds like a pathetic amount of money for betraying your customers with a shitty ad infested smart tv