Uhh, so the Washington Post revealed my city has been using dystopian nightmare AI facial recognition surveillance through a private company to track people on a watchlist.

Apparently they had a secret partnership with Palantir several years ago(news to me) and this is allegedly not directly related to that, but it seems like it definitely is.

Now Republicans are trying to pass a law to ban states from regulating AI for the next 10 years

Not only would it ban any new regulations, it would repeal all existing bans and regulations.

This may be confusing bc states rights, right? Well, since the federal government is currently being controlled by the people that also run these private AI companies, these companies would get to decide what a federal regulation would cover (if anything) and if it actually gets enforced (hard to do if you disband the entire federal government that handles oversight and protection of rights. That means even if you live in a deep blue state, you could end up in the same mass surveillance boat as me in bright red Louisiana, with no way to stop it no matter how much you beg your local leaders.

Not good, right? So please for the love of God, make sure you, and everyone you know make as much noise as possible so that doesn’t happen!

  • Basic Glitch@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Clearly this is just a way to get all of the cases currently holding him in contempt dropped.

    It seems it’s up to the judge’s discretion at what it’s set, at least according to the traitorous scumbags that wrote the bill.

    “The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants,” Mr. Jordan said at a hearing on Wednesday. “What’s typically happened in these cases is he’s just waiving it. Nobody’s putting it up. And they’re getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern.”

    Most likely, unless the judges want to allow the court system to completely crumble, like you’re worried they will, they will have to play ball by setting it to an affordable amount like $1.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/us/politics/trump-policy-bill-judges-contempt.html

    The point isn’t really that you have to pay a $1. The point is that the president is making it loud and clear that there is now a dollar amount on upholding the constitution. By making a citizen pay any amount of money anytime the government violates the rights it’s a show of lawlessness by the president and his loyalists.

    These people are already being paid to uphold the rights they’re violating, with the tax dollars that they’re squandering on the AI data centers they’re rolling out across the country in different states, so that they can steal more data, invade more privacy, violate more rights, and have no consequences unless they are cut off at the state level by state government.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Why are you taking a Republican senator at his word?

      They’re lying. They don’t know how this would actually play out, no one does

      It doesn’t matter what they say today… They’re going to immediately push this as far as they can if it gets through. They operate in bad faith, every time

      And maybe you’re right and that’s how it does play out… But this is a play that ends democracy if we lose.

      And let me remind you, they literally just argued in the supreme Court to do basically what I’m describing