It's fascinating to see this in things as life-or-death-to-millions-important like global politics, and the you-know-who. And his team of this kind of people...
Fascinating in the sense of "How did you get here!? And can't you see this move will blow up in your face in the near future!?".
I guess if you have 50-60 years of adulthood where you made dumb moves but got away with it...
If only the user can tell whether something is potentially dangerous, then either every bug or none of them should get a CVE. There are countless systems out there that are commonly used in ways beyond what even the developer intended, how should a third party authority like the CNA be able to discern this?
They can't. Which is why security discussions are such a hot mess.
The vendors fixing them arguably prioritize these reports right. Most of the CVEs, even severe ones, are irrelevant in practice, and as parents note, are more like regular bugs with security flavor in reporting. The CVE label instead of regular bug tracking number makes them seem important.
Linux Kernel may be one of the few legitimate exceptions, indeed, due to the position in which it sits in the software stack. Also LLMs make previously unexploitable-in-practice vulnerabilities exploitable (by making targeted / personalized attack cheap enough to give them positive ROI), which complicates things.
I think you have to make a distinction between bugs and actual vulnerabilities. Therac-25 killed people, but I wouldn’t consider anything about it to be a security vulnerability. In my mind, the distinction between a bug and a vulnerability is that a bug is triggered during “normal” operations and can do anything. Whereas a vulnerability requires an adversary to “trigger” the vulnerability, and can do this to achieve some cognizable malicious goal. There’s probably some overlap on the edges; whether an issue in a library is a bug or a vulnerability may depend on how it is used, for example.
But I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that a bug isn’t necessarily less serious or less important than a vulnerability. A serious bug should be patched just as urgently as a serious vulnerability.
We have laws to combat the disinformation, its just we just stopped enforcing it because it was the political's best interests. Like we actually have fined (X for 120M).
So solution is gate it behind age? It doesnt fix disinformation problem, i refuse to belive that they cant just run transcription via AI and spot disinformation to delete. If EU thinks AI is good enough to invade our privacy via chat control. Why not use this to combat disinformation? or even easier just find repeating messages and block that (since lots campaigns work like this)
Theres so many solutions before having to resort age gate, the worst is. Putting it behind gate doesnt protect from people who can vote, so what they are even trying fix there?
People also seem forget, on household, we share devices with children. So user can share +18 flag easy as parents are lending tablet for them play games. Im referring the OS level age verification system which is happening around US.
My guess is they own accounts which show the ads, so they get paid for showing ads. This is similar how those "get free money" apps work, they own Ad account and get paid when you view/click that ad.
Another theory is since lots free games have where you can earn in-game currency for viewing ads, the bot farms might be abusing this method.
Its resource allocation problem, same happened with .com bubble, lots investors put tons of money into dark fibers. Were they useless? No its very useful.
If you want check a example company from the .com days check cisco, their stock peaked at 75 then crashed hard and only managed hit that again thanks for the AI bubble.
> at worst someone could make some mean anonymous comments
No, at worst they could conduct an astroturf campaign and manipulate the overton window. I suspect that Noam Chomsky attains correctness by volume and by forgetting the times he was wrong, but the whole "manufactured consent" concept looks prescient.
Governments aren't clearly willing to regulate the companies. They just let them do whatever they want once they're too big to regulate. Internet Companies has 20 years of history of datamining for sake advertising. Still nothing is done about, why even allow them obtain even more leverage?
So if I happen to have guns for boobs, and I go around topless showing off my gun-boobs, am I a magnificent symbol of liberty or am I deplorably degenerate?
Items require payments which usually would be a credit card. Kids cannot get a credit card on their own as far as I know so the parents have to be involved in some way. (Obviously there are alternatives like paypal, prepaid debit cards, etc but it is quite a bit harder to actual get the item).
I am not saying it is hard to get a prepaid debit card. I explicitly mentioned it as a workaround. I am saying that it is harder to get buy a physical item over the internet then to just visit a site.
