It's just so rare for so many governments to simultaneously, suddenly, after so many years of social media agree that it's a problem on the scale of chloroflurocarbons.
There is also the related term “defensive democracy”, supposedly different but in practice the end result is the same. In both cases the democratic process is failing to achieve the results desired by those in power, so forceful intervention is used to steer future results.
Managed democracy seems fine so long as you can remove the bastards if they become Putin-like.
There's a lot of hot air about democracy being voting for parties or politicians for the policies we like. Personally I have never felt that I've ever positively influenced policy with my voting. I have voted against a party because I disliked their policy, but that counterfactual is harder to judge (either my vote loses, or the policy doesn't occur : either way it is unclear if my vote mattered?).
I'm rather cynical about democracy - it feels mostly like children's participation awards (which are great!).
They work with other orgs, e.g. Fairplay (formerly CCFC) in the US.
Yes. Like most of the "news".
Google, Meta, Microsoft and Apple really need your personal data.
Just have a look at Epstein files, you can see that a lot of "occidental" politics and business leaders were connected to him one way or another. You see that we don't have equal rights but some get privileged info about big financial changes that could help them grow their wealth.
Look at how hard we had to fight Microsoft contracts creeping in everywhere in public institutions and schools, when you see in background that Microsoft was spending billions organizing events, gifts, ... to "legally" bribe officials.
Now we can all see that there is a big dictatorial shift in the political leaders of occidental countries that used to be lands of freedom and rights. Politics see that they are unpopular and there is an uproar of the population to have change, but on the other side they see that a lot of dictatorial countries are able to control their population and stay in power using liberty restriction regulations (China, N Korea, Russia, Arabian countries, ...). So they are going to do the same.
And the best way for them to support such reduction in freedom for populations is to bound together to do it together: - One "western" country leader that would instigate censorship, and reducing freedom and privacy right would be seen too clearly as abusing and on a dictatorial trend. - But if multiple of them push for that at the same time, it might more easily be seen as "for the greater good", because they are the "free countries"...
So sad that the second world war is so far away, almost everyone forgot what happened in the years before the Nazi took control of Germany and started the obvious horrors. But we are on the same path.
Putin's Russia is also a good example of how a country that was on the verge of freedom and liberty for its population, slowly but surely shifted to the current dictatorial state. All of that without a clear "revolution" or sudden shift. And officially it is still a "democratic" country...
Pro-suicide content has been a thing since the days of USENET. It's been a (lesser) problem on social media since the start. Is it really just that one case got over the hysteria threshold?
But yes, if the algorithm is suggesting pro-suicide content then the developers are morally, if not legally, liable for that and should expect some consequences. I note that one of the few taboos maintained by the otherwise grossly irresponsible UK media is not reporting on suicide (because this is known to be a trigger). You might see "famous musician died suddenly at a young age" and have to connect the dots yourself.
if she hadnt searched for it herself, it wouldnt have suggested it. the parents (understandly) want to blame someone for it. politics is emotion, not logic.
That is not an excuse for suggesting it.