atrielienz

I don't think this will go anywhere because I'm fairly certain that they did have your permission if you were using their assistant or Gemini at all. You can opt out of both, but you won't have those features.

That's just fucked up. This country sucks.

Yeah. I made my comment before I looked at the rest of the comments and got more context. But in theory you should be able to do that at an embassy. So I dunno.

I feel like this is what fax is for. Maybe I'm mistaken. Send it by fax and then send it by snail mail.

Undefeated for you. I take it you don't work in a place where smartphones are not allowed. Or where it would be inconvenient to use a smart phone, but more convenient to use a watch or tablet (out to sea on a ship for instance). There's plenty of use cases. If you're looking for them for yourself I'm not sure we're likely to be able help you with that. If you're wondering why they're on the market at all, then it's because other people do have a use for them.

People who eat the Carolina reaper prove that this is both not a deterrent, and may in fact be the point. On the other hand I've never heard any of them talk about the texture afterward. So maybe the burning is too distracting.

You'd be able to taste it which I think would fulfill the requirements of knowing its texture.

Or spy on them more.

Fair.

Again. I'm going to stipulate that I do understand that the site owners have to deal with the fallout of that, in the event that they are private citizens and not business entities.

Section 230 in the US gives certain immunity in regards to content that is posted for social media platforms.

Provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances. <<

Meaning you can't be held civilly liable for the actions of your users if you run a social media platform as a business. It specifically doesn't consider social media to be a publisher and therefore not subject to the same legal restrictions as a publisher would be.

But, if the business is not US based, even if the majority of its users are American, it may or may not be decided that such an entity is subject to it (or that even if that business is subject to the laws of its locality, the US can and often has considered that immunity to hold which was not the intention (it was not intended to be used for global immunity)).

So if we flip that around, and take into consideration the natural assumptions of most users who may or may not be from the locality in question, they 1. Do not give any thought whatsoever to the owner of the social media platforms they use, and 2. Assume that any such legal action taken as a result of their personal statements or actions will only be considered in their own locality. This is human nature. I'm not defending it.

This thread and the original post are about adding clarity for users, moderators and admins of this instance. If clarity is the goal, users should be made aware of the locality under which the platform legally falls. Since we also know the average user is unlikely to have read the complete TOS, we know that having that information there at the very bottom and nowhere else means most users will not ever come across it.

Now, can we stop assuming this is just Americans messing it up for the rest, and leave the mentality behind and focus on the assumptions of anyone who might sign up here (from any country) that is not the locality of where the website is hosted or where it's owners reside?

Nobody is asking anyone to take any risks here. I'm literally saying that the problem is that people make natural assumptions that most people are prone to, and as a result, a better way to inform them could potentially be implemented. I'm not even arguing that the owners don't get to make the rules. I'm not sure where you got that from. That's why I asked (not demanded).

If a mod (from say South American or Zimbabwe) was operating under the laws in their country and banned someone for content that they felt was against the law, but it was not against the law in the locality of the site or the offender, would that mod be in the right? There's at least one comment I've seen on this post from a mod who felt a comment not in a community they moderate was breaking the rules and they admit their initial reaction was to ban the person before they realized that they are not the entity that should be undertaking that duty.

If clarity is important, maybe this should be considered.

It's about what I would or could use it for that I wouldn't use a phone for. I don't want a giant phone. I don't really enjoy watching videos/movies on a phone. For home control I don't need anything but wifi and maybe Bluetooth and I'm not interested in paying smartphone prices for the privilege. Same thing for viewing weather or schedules at a glance. Having that functionality to check on a smart phone is fine. Useful. Having it on a tablet where I can glance at it while getting dressed is better. And the speakers are generally better with better battery life (more space for a bigger battery) on a tablet. If you don't have the use case for a piece of tech, of course it doesn't make sense.

That's not what I'm assuming. The assumption isn't that it's the USA or any country at all. The assumption most people make is that they and their actions are covered under the laws of their locality.