I'm not aware of any single furry emoji, but I've noticed a lot of furry communities on the Fediverse using custom (non-Unicode) emoji packs; see [1] for how that might work. Also an example of the feature in use[2].
Companies in western democracies usually pay tax in addition to their workers and owners, but don't have representation in parliaments separate to that of their workers and owners. Questions about whether robots have the right to vote has more to do with their humanity and less to do with their tax liability in such societies.
I have my browser set to clear cookies and site data automatically, so I'm not sure if my experience of YouTube shorts is typical, but I have a pet theory about why the feelings you describe are so common. It seems like a big part of the addictiveness is not that the content is eye-catching, although this clearly has an effect. The platform gives you a quick way to move onto something else by scrolling/swiping, which means I find myself caught in a cycle of:
1. seeing AI slop or a unoriginal 'comedy' sketch,
2. thinking "eww get this off my screen",
3. scrolling down to the next video; jump to step 1
On the rare occasions that the algorithm does show something genuinely interesting or creative, I watch to the end of the video and feel a lot more satisfied about spending time on it. That's not to say that long-form videos can't be distracting and addictive, but I would posit that 'shorts' engagement is actually driven by disgust rather than curiosity. I now avoid YouTube shorts like the plague, because life is too short to experience that volume of disgust in it.
I'm not sure that's relevant to Chat Control. What's at stake here is not a definition of 'acceptable communication' in public, but the possibility of all private communication being scanned.
That's not to say that private communication can't already be illegal; mere 'conspiracy' is a crime in many places. Yet the level of surveillance that would be enabled by legislation like Chat Control is greater than any other in history. Even notorious agencies like the Stasi had to pick and choose their targets based on prior suspicion, simply because of the logistics involved in traditional surveillance.
We don't fully know what effects this kind of unceasing, universal monitoring would have on society, and what little historical precedent exists doesn't bode well. Restrictions on public speech however are pretty well understood; we've had censorship in various forms pretty much everywhere in the world at one point or another. We can look to history for lessons about what happens, and can properly discuss (even if not agree!) about when censorship is good or bad for society.
My comment is 100% relevant to the comment I was replying to. (Sometimes I do wish people who down vote were forced to comment why they were making such erroneous decisions)
And again with the passive aggressive "downvote because you have no ability to explain your disagreement"
Edit: To anyone reading and thinking of joining in to any of the discussions, the message is clear - Facebook or Reddit level of inanity is all you will find here.
This isn't even close to true. The people who are serious about privacy and the open Web, and in the technologies posited to bring that about (such as self-sovereign identity and federation), tend to spend much more money.
They buy servers to self-host services, extra hardware to store data locally and domain names to let others find them. Those who cannot afford it sometimes join niche communities like the Tildeverse as an outlet for the interest.
In my experience it's largely the 'just not interested' camp who always go for the free webmail and whatever free messaging service comes with their phone.
Make sure you absolutely have fresh entropy for all ten of your encryption layers. Re-using secrets and randomness between different encryption algorithms can leak a lot of data!
I think even 111 years is being too cautious. One only needs to look as far as the numerous vagrancy laws in England to see how a citizen might be prevented from living "where he liked and as he liked". Persecution of minorities including 'witches', Gypsies and Jews has been a continual theme. England has had banned books, even banned translations of the Holy Bible.
The Edwardian era was a very unusual period of liberality, I'll agree. But at least in that quote, Taylor is making some strange omissions that I hardly think are accidental: for a start, where is the mention of women's suffrage, introduced for the first time ever after the Great War?
> ...powers of the government to require more identification for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID
> That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other European countries seem to have managed to implement these systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)
Yet also: a country's requirement for identification is orthogonal to it becoming a totalitarian police state.
In British politics, there is a strong current of opposition to international institutions and treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights[1][2] and the International Criminal Court[3]. The UK's commitment to human rights is enough in doubt that one encounters situations such as German courts being unable to extradite a suspected criminal because of the poor treatment of prisoners in Britain[4].
Countries like Germany and Belgium are able to have mandatory ID cards without too much issue because of characteristics including their written (and actively litigated) constitutions, judicial independence and proportionally representative election systems. ID cards might be make them lean more or less totalitarian - but it doesn't matter as much, as the rules about identification make up only a small part of a huge and robust framework of law and human rights.
With few constitutional protections for UK citizens, and what independent institutions there are under constant attack from various political parties, I don't think those who object to digital ID can be blamed for being suspicious of the government's motivations.
Yeah i don’t disagree about the UK government tendencies, my point is more that they can be authoritarian without digital id and our current systems are not fit for purpose and a digital ID can help people who have problems fitting in with current system requirements like passports and drivers licenses which are not free or universal.
Alongside the environmental disasters that the USA and the rest of the world face, there is some good news to celebrate now and then. Like this HN story, but also things like the new 'wildlife bridge'[1] over Route 101.
reply