https://www.pcworld.com/article/3104521/teenagers-gemini-mis...
This article was about a family in the UK.
China social credit score is a government policy which comes with government punishments.
This incident is about Google enforcing contract terms on a Google account.
What we should learn from the story is that consolidation of all services into a single account with a single company means increased harm if any contract violations are enforced.
If you get banned from an airline for violating a company policy, your life isn't over. Flying is a little less easy or maybe a little more expensive / friction. But that's different from the government banning you from flying on any aircraft.
Yet, the stock ticker kept on rising after the incident.
Are you?
You personally were one of the guys that defeated the nazis?
How about the current leader of America, was he one of the guys that defeated them?
You shouldn't even coast on your own success, but you definitely can't coast on the success of people who are not you, much less do so nearly a century later.
Technology enables central control. That has been obvious for decades now. AI makes it a bit worse.
You are still at the mercy of the legal system, but not unappealable AI decisions.
And then, when they ban you, you will not be able to create a new account and continue. Every ban will be forever. Like getting on the no-fly list.
With local models, you can’t be banned.
While employed, you’re using corporate accounts and can’t be banned.
Google/openai/etc detect that you are using your corporate account from the same home where you use your banned account, corporate account get banned for trying to circumvent the ban.
Can you be sure this will never happen ?
They only ever get cancelled over money
https://karmak.org/archive/2003/12/manna/manna1.htm
(time for it to be reposted and discussed again since the author's untimely demise? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42228759 )
Introducing, Google Maps Review in 2026.
Anyone can say almost any type of slander about your business without even being a customer. If you report it to Google, the burden of proof is on you to show that they violated a policy.
How can you prove that a review came from a personal grudge vs a genuine review of the business? Sure you can say that you have no record of that reviewer, but how do you prove it? Google rejects nearly all such reports and appeals without giving any reason.
A Google Map "review" is more like a public messaging board where anyone can write whatever they want and as long as it appears loosely related to the business it'll be nearly impossible for the business owner to take down.
I think the best thing that business owners can do is take matters into their own hands by showing genuine reviews on their own site.
Mandatory AI for society participation is just the next step.
agreed, and it's a bit disappointing to frame the very real current problem with dependency on us tech with the framework of 'you won't get all the ai magic'
we have an example of the icc judge who has basically been removed from modern society because of ridiculous sanctions, and there was the threat to the UK for sanctions over the mere suggestion that they would be investigating musk and twitter for the actual csam content and deep fake content being produced
any place and anyone that depends on us tech companies or us payment processors are a single social media post from deranged american politicians away from being removed from modern society -- this is a real and present danger, and it's a bit pathetic to frame it as 'you won't get to enjoy the wonders of ai if you get banned'
> On 9 October 2026, the United States imposed new sanctions on the ICC. The sanctions bar the ICC from U.S. financial services, technology companies and transactions in U.S. dollars, and require U.S. businesses and individuals to wind down their businesses with the ICC in six months.
The ratchet of authoritarianism has been turning steadily in the US (and the rest of the world) for at least the past 25 years, and a big part of why no coherent opposition to it managed to manifest is how it was turned into a partisan issue. Republicans and the apathetic centre tune out Democratic complaints about the authoritarianism of a Republican administration just as it happened when the party associations were reversed some 5 years ago, because a group resenting its outgroup wielding power is the most unsurprising dog-bites-man event.
At the same time, neither side is willing to criticise authoritarianism by their own, both because they do not want to "stab their soldiers in the back" in the culture war and because in practical terms more power to wield against the outgroup is too useful to forego. Would you still be happy to support a durable circumscription of the current US admin's ability to regulate local AI, if it also meant that no future Democratic administration could interfere with a cataclysmic AI-driven campaign of right-wing misinformation and propaganda that is threatening everything you hold dear?
And then the other side uses it as justification to escalate further.
Name the last time a president was prosecuted and you'll have your answer. Trumps lawsuit over presidential acts just forced into the open what was before a gentlemen's agreement about presidential power. Outside of office, I don't think any of the former presidents had a huge drive to commit anything above financial crimes and using their status.
Biden I can not think of anything scaling beyond putting his ego over country when he went for a second term. He clashed with the legal system but challenges in court is typical for the role. And even in that, he choose to comply (example loan repayment) over Trump who rushes to complete his goal before legal can step in (golf course, ballroom, etc).
You're just proving my point without realizing it. I'm not even American, and have no horse in your race.
Would you be interested to join?
Please tell me about the time the Biden White House publicly called on the DOJ to prosecute its political enemies or interfere in elections.
If that happened, it should not be hard to find a reference to a public statement or executive order.
> you’ll be forced to love your wife for who she is and not her AI generated fake persona!
Seriously…?
Apparently this is some dystopia with or without the AI companies banning you from their services, yet somehow the big scary thing is not having open weight models.
The entire tech world needs to get a grip on reality, like the fact that this random Twitter fanfic gained any traction at all on this site is a massive indictment of the quality of discourse here.
There's no need for banning to make people economically useless, it's the natural end state for AI.
Open Source is economically viable???
And AI feeds on open source???
Am I missing the sarcasm or something? Or perhaps that an AI bot created this post.