Also, I’m pretty sure the argument is more about the unequal enforcement of the law. Copyright should be either enforced fairly or not at all. If AI is allowed to scrape content and regurgitate it, piracy should also be legal.

That’s one thing, but I think regurgitating it and claiming it as your own is a completely different thing.

Wait, how does Google make money off of paywalled contents?

My general approach to this tends to be to identify what makes me happy in life, splurge on those, save on everything else. For example, I love computers, so I’d splurge on parts, but religiously meal prep to save on food.

It doesn’t make sense too, like it’s bad enough even if just one died.

Even ignoring the surveillance aspect of ads, which I could go on a massive rant about, Google and other ad platforms themselves doesn’t seem to care about harming people with malvertising and scam ads. Why should I care about their revenue?

I’d imagine if, say Signal, refuses to comply and gets banned from the EU, one could always use a VPN. I think that nothing short of either a full global ban or implementing a version of The Great Wall of China would allow these ridiculous laws to be enforced. Even then, there will always be ways around it for those willing to go the extra mile.

Honestly, they could at least wait and see what happens in the UK before proposing something similar. They literally have a free guinea pig next door.

It’s such a shame though, since as far as I know, the EU have had such an amazing track record. I’d expect no less from big tech, but not the EU.

I wish people who proposes laws and regulations that violates human rights with provable intent to do just that would be fined or imprisoned.

Are adblockers even illegal? I didn’t think it was.

Don’t forget about malvertising, that’s probably a more imminent danger. If Google and other ad companies don’t give enough of a shit about user to actually filter out malware ads, why should I give enough of a shit about their revenue to not use uBO?

Time to poison their data, I guess.

Ah, that’s understandable. My native tongue doesn’t really have gendered pronouns so they/them feels right at home for me (though ironically, the people in my country are mostly conservative and bigoted and wouldn’t accept nonbinary)

I keep it simple and default to they/them unless they mention some specific preference. Doesn’t matter if they appear to be very traditionally masculine or feminine, or anything in between.

I agree, but I don’t think the studies themselves are to blame though, they’re simply reporting the facts. OP just simply misinterpreted it, knowingly or otherwise. The studies back up the point that ‘vaccine injuries exist’ which I don’t think anyone is arguing against. The important point is rather that ‘Covid is significantly worse than any vaccine injury, and our system can take care of the latter but not the former’.

Neat, thanks! Makes me even more grateful that I decided to switch.

I don’t think the point is that it’s not a threat. I think it’s more like if you set fire to a house before robbing the neighbouring house, if that makes sense. It’s not that the house on fire isn’t important, but more so that it was meant to distract everyone.

I only did a quick skim through the abstracts so I might miss some important details, but from what I can tell, they’re all rare/one-off events. Sure, they exist, but the rate at which these vaccine injuries exist is eclipsed by that of Covid itself; there’s a reason why the hospitals were overloaded by Covid and not vaccine injuries. The point is not that the vaccine is 100% safe, it’s that the downsides of Covid far outweigh that of the vaccine (not to mention that, at least from what I understand, vaccine injuries are not contagious, unlike Covid, and hence you are protecting others who are immunocompromised). Tl:dr is that unlike what you see with the overloading of hospitals during covid, they have no problem handling a couple of vaccine injuries here and there.

Is GrapheneOS affected?