Hosting links to news articles that force you to subscribe to view the entire content makes this whole point moot in my opinion. That is if I do end up clicking a link in my news feed for an article I’m actually interested in. Which is very rare for me to do on social media site.

Been nice knowing you, Gizmodo.

If this is what they are ADMITTING to, imagine what they’re hiding/not admitting. This is just some security theater / breadcrumbs to appease the easily handwaved away. 

Still had better editing, though.

What’s the joke? It clearly wrote a better article.

odd..couldn’t tell the difference

You did ask it to write a “Gizmodo” article.... So that could somewhat explain that...

I bet this bot could have made a great slideshow though.

ChatGPT Wrote a Terrible Gizmodo Article

Reflex: No.

On reflection: They’ll keep the BS that presents *as* news so it looks like they still offer news but toss the stuff that is actual journalism. 

When reading all of these JCPA articles framing the story around Facebook, keep in mind that this bill is being championed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Sinclair.

I would love it if it was that simple, but I imagine this will make it impossible to post/share reputable news from reputable sources on Facebook but would still let my crazy right-wing uncle share screeds from incoherent conspiracy sites. Seems like the unintended misinformation consequences are huge.

Seems legally dubious, especially the provision about requiring that they run news content on their sites and then pay for it. The Courts have killed “mandatory business” stuff like that before, and this Court in particular seems likely to kill it.

The problem is that the headline is enough to skip reading the article.

Yeah I don’t get it either. If I go to news.google.co.nz it pretty much looks like the same layout. Since when are headlines and short excerpts something that needs paid for? It’s like an old library card catalogue. You would think these news sites would welcome the traffic because how else would I see stories from…

Yeah, this isn’t newsworthy. China’s government and corporations are quite intertwined and love user data, hence their big push for a surveillance state. Privacy is never an option there.

One of many reasons why I never wanted this stupid app on my phone.

It is so much easier to sue and get a settlement from a company for securities laws violations than it is to sue and get a settlement for sexual assaults committed by the company’s drivers. This is less an indictment of Lyft and more of an indictment of our legal system and who it benefits and protects. It protects…

I mean unless it's because people are complaining that other people who were wronged got a settlement (which I hope the writing isn't just barrel of crabsing it), no. I can't see a reason to be pissed about Lift having to pay out money for deceptive practices when it doesn't prevent them from paying out for the…

This isn’t surprising. They sued and it was an easy thing to get a settlement in (hiding that information violates numerous laws and opens the company and potentially executives up to liability for among other things breaches of fiduciary duty). Also quite likely some 401k funds in their on that suit, not just wealthy…