aelwero

LG effectively has said that their owners manual and a cardboard box have authority over the courts. Clearly, as the courts have nullified it, they fucking dont.

All I see is a damned good reason to ban arbitration agreements outright. If you want to arbitrate a tort, you should be required to motion the court for it.

That sounds like it's exactly the point...

Normally I'd chalk your comment up as being a little too "tinfoil hat" to warrant engaging, but half the article implies exactly that, and I don't think the author was doing it on purpose because quite frankly, I don't think there are any news authors left with the competence to do so.

This is 100% some shit I'd expect to come out of the red team though... The Biden administration hasn't struck me as being on the side of corporate interests (generally speaking... I'm not naive enough to think the Biden administration couldn't be bought, I'm speaking to track record here...), and I don't think this would impact tax revenue much, which is to say that there's not much ulterior motivation for blues to trump up a bullshit problem to keep Chinese cars out of the market.

I'm inclined to agree with your opinion, but logically it doesn't add up, is my point :)

The movie companies said they were not planning to go after these people in court

Worlds most prolific story tellers tellin stories;)

In case Apple’s advice doesn’t work, it’s safe to say that you probably need help from professional repair experts and may even need to prepare yourself to buy a new iPhone.

"Don't do anything yourself, just come give us more money"

I'm reasonably certain that once enough governments jump on the "we need to control the internets" bandwagon, there will be a region specific convention adopted similar to country codes for phone numbers so that they can, in fact, apply customs to it...

I suspect it won't be in the name of righteousness though, more likely it'll be taxes, copyright, etc, on internet sales that trigger it.

options include the establishment of a digital ID system or services that can estimate an individual's age based on a visual scan of their face.

Oh yeah... I'm sure that won't cause any unintended issues at all...

Ultimately, what I'm asking you is: why would I be opposed to a law that itself is 100% fine, just because the same legislators might later pass a different law that I don't like?

Ultimately because the basic premise of the law could (in general) be the basis for the government to remove our entire conversation here...

It is potentially a tool to do this

In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true.

I don't object for the sake of my my benefit, I object for the sake of yours (everyone).

I see it a one degree increment on the proverbial frog in the proverbial pot, being slowly but surely brought to boil and it's death, and I don't really care who it affects in the moment.

No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here (I'm totally fine with this personally, no animosity intended at all, I like discourse and you don't seem like you're being a dick about it, so we're on friendly terms here from my perspective)

Do you not think that government determination of what is or is not acceptable on "social media" (quotes because generalizing) is eerily similar to thoughtcrime? And an orwellian policy? Making a 1984 reference in its defense a little ironic?

I realize I discounted the bulk of your comment and all the "logical fallacy" buzz phrases you threw in, but I generally consider that pedantry and responding to it would bring in bad vibes on my side, so I skipped it, sorry. I can engage it, but I won't have anything to say on it worth reading, it'll just be old guy bullshit....

How you gonna reference 1984 while actively defending an orwellian policy?

Sounds an awful lot like sticking your head in the sand.

"Social media" is going to be whatever they decide they want government oversight on... Not being part of the introductory offer isnt a very good reason to accept it in my opinion.

They'll come for your forum eventually...

Ok, well it was intended to be an opinion, so your assertion that I'm incorrect is incorrect because its my opinion, but that aside, which part?

I reiterate that question because if your opinion is in direct opposition to mine, it is, in my opinion, the one I would most like to hear. I'm a moderate/centrist/libertarian(non-party) and I'd unironically and unsarcastically love to hear your opinion on it. Unless you're just being a pedant, then I'll listen and I respect your right to posit any pedantic objections, but I won't really care much :)

content that incites violence or hate speech from social media.

“They need to expeditiously remove content they are aware of if it is illegal.”

If a social media platform does not comply with the new EU law it can be sanctioned with a hefty fine

This essentially adds up to government proctorship of any "public forum" on the internet, including here... So if I randomly throw an "all lives matter" right here mid-comment, which while at face value is a ridiculously benign thing to say, can be and almost always is considered to be hate speech, lemmy is entirely obligated to immediately remove my comment or face heavy sanctions from the EU.

It's an extreme caricature of an example that I assume won't go anywhere, but the point is that it could, and the deciding factor on that isn't anyone here, the deciding factor is a bunch of rando EU officials... If some Karen in Wales in the right position decides she doesn't like my comment, she could initiate a "hefty" fine against lemmy admins.

It's an absurd concept, and I don't say that in the context of tuker Carlson (who I simply don't give two shits about in any context), I say that in the context of us, as a "social media" community. We are subject to this proctorship, this censorship...