367
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2026
367 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
88253 readers
2870 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's the point of this article? To highlight that the sausage maker that is a parliamentary democracy is slow? Or to show how narrow majority margins cause long delays in passing legislation? I can't imagine it's only the lack of knowledge about so-called AI. I imagine many members don't know that much about tax law, the intricacies of the military, or drugs in general. Yet we don't question their qualifications when they pass legislation on those subjects. We elect people to these bodies not on the basis that they are experts at everything but for their ability to look into issues and form an opinion that hopefully most resembles ours. They cannot know everything, no matter how much they pretend. If that is the standard we hold them to, you'll only get braggadocios assholes who will stand for elections.
When has a legislature ever been on top of the latest developments, especially in tech? It's pretty much always reactive. The seatbelt and crumple zone came after the introduction of the automobile. OSHA didn't predate the industrial revolution. Section 230 came after the WWW. Not by much in the grand scheme of things but still. We are what now? 4-5 years into this madness? It's not unusual not to have great regulations set in stone.
Speak for your fucking self. I don't trust our legislature on any of those. These fuckers have been allowing wars that aren't wars, drug laws that target minorities and political undesirables, and have fucked our tax code over the last 50 years to the point where we're currently in another guilded age.
Honestly, I'd love to see them pretend again, instead of the ignorant braggadocios assholes we have dominating elections now who don't even try to pretend and make everything a culture war.
Agreed, and elected representatives don’t even need to have a particularly deep understanding in a particular area to make laws that are fair. They don’t have to understand all the math behind gradient descent or transformers to keep big corporations from abusing the tech, just like they don’t need to understand the intricacies of car engines to make traffic safety laws. They do need to consult experts and preferably have data to back up the laws.
Where the hell are you in arguments on lemmy about why nothing gets done in Congress? lol. I have to make some of these arguments that you have made quite cogently, and it can be annoying not to have backup. lol
Its never been worse. The US has been checkmated by:
I'm going to take issue with this statement. Nobody has checkmated the US. If we have to stay in this metaphor, the US checkmated itself.
One of the biggest mistakes was to allot the same number of votes to Rhode Island as to California in the senate. A more proportionate voting system would do wonders for half the issues you listed. Appointing judges for life is another one. Financing election campaigns like that is also mad. Nobody forced Americans to do business like that.
This isn't a game of chess where checkmate is irreversible. The sooner folks stop formulating arguments why I'm wrong or why these are insurmountable hurdles, the better for all of us.
While I do agree that with the cult clown car people in charge of the executive right now, there is an added difficulty to passing legislation. The Epstein Act part 1 has shown though there are ways. So regulation on so-called AI is still possible and not late like the article seems to suggest.
The problem is a lot of this is checkmate. How do you reverse any of these massive changes your advocating? Pretty sure its going to require some majority or plurality of parties ~~some~~ many of whom may be similar to RI in their interest in not having their voice degraded?
How do you do that non-violently or in some less than multilateral way
You're formulating arguments why I'm wrong. With the greatest of respect, that's defeatism speaking. Difficult? Yes. Checkmate? No. It may take a crisis to get this going; the New Deal didn't come from nowhere either.
You cannot fix all of these issues at once. You probably cannot fix a lot of these issues without first improving education levels within the population. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.
Term limits for SC judges to some odd number of years for any new appointees is something both sides will be able to agree on. If nobody tries though, of course it won't happen.
1 party, but its a coalition of 2 parties.
Only in the sense that a supermajority of our Congress is beholden to the oligarchs on economic issues, sure, but there is even a minority but growing wing of progressives who need our support.
Meanwhile, on social issues - things like human rights - there is rather more difference between the two parties. Anyone can look at what the support, and while establishment Democrats tend not to be extremely forceful about protecting human rights as much as progressives would like, they are worlds apart from the fascists who are trying to instill Christian nationalism.
Uniparty