Would they do that for an international departure? They know where you’re flying, and I’d think they’d just tell you to stop being an idiot and show them the passport you obviously must have. But policies can be weird, so maybe not.
Users are already liable for their content under 270, it doesn't protect the producers of content it only protects the distributors. But yeah I guess YouTube could force producers to carry insurance or something so that if YouTube is also found liable for their content then the insurance could indemnify them.
> Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.
Seems pretty clear to me, do you really think people need a lawyer to understand that?
Support page with ~25 tutorials provided by Microsoft about how to "Create a document with Copilot" or "Create a branded presentation from a file" or "Start a Loop workspace from a Teams meeting".
Do you actually believe that creating branded presentations (from Microsoft's own examples) is something people do for "entertainment purposes"?
If Copilot is for entertainment purposes only then why is https://office.com all about how you can use Copilot, and closes with the small print "Copilot Chat in the Microsoft 365 Copilot app is available for Microsoft 365 Enterprise, Academic, SMB, Personal and Family subscribers with a work, education, or personal account."
Why would they include a product for entertainment purposes only in the product they sell to large companies for doing work?
Because even in the worst case what we are really talking about is just much higher risk than the government is claiming, but its still far more likely to succeed than fail. Plenty of people would take a 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 chance of dying if it meant they could walk on the moon.
It is also exactly these same people of the USA whose thinking is going to matter for determining what happens next, not anyone else. It is immaterial what "everyone else outside the borders of the USA" thinks in the context of the country.
Yes. And for the context of this conversation, the people in the USA are what matters. It's not like this regime is going to give up just because other countries dislike them. Their core fan base think it's going gangbusters.
They have been under a lot of pressure for years to disable e2e messaging because it prevents them from monitoring messages for child abuse. This was a central point of the trial. While they haven't given a reason for the change I think its reasonable to infer it is in response to this pressure.
However there is another possible explanation
> Tom Sulston, head of policy at Digital Rights Watch, said rather than acceding to law enforcement demands, the move was more likely due to Meta deciding against moving messaging on WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram to a single platform.
reply