Brian Boland

@nauerbach.com Thoughts on Chambliss NFL draft stock after this game?

@nauerbach.com Pula was right... The refs just want to be on TV

Inexcusable!

Miami has to be like... Oh crap...

"Instead, let’s expand on a technique from the ACA: cap out-of-pocket costs based on income no matter where the person gets insurance. This cap can be used in Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance so that no middle-class person would pay more than 10% of their income on health care costs."

Instead, let’s expand on a technique from the ACA: cap out-of-pocket costs based on income no matter where the person gets insurance. This cap can be used in Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance so that no middle-class person would pay more than 10% of their income on health care costs.

The Algorithm Accountability Act sponsored by Senator Kelly is a great approach here. I strongly encourage it

Telling me you think I am wrong doesn't make my position wrong. They do have lawyers, and you can't say they will win all of these cases. Tobacco thought it would win all the cases until it didn't. You can also limit these liabilities until companies cross a specific size, so it is not existential.

Lawyers claim things all the time. Judges and juries sort it out. It's how our system works. I like how you are resorting to personal attacks and all caps YoU Are WrOnG!!!!! rather than addressing the issues. Really shameful TBH. Do you now think our system of courts works?

Calling me stupid wouldn't count; I have been clear on that. Are you arguing that social media and the selection of content has no impact on people? Is there no situation where the algorithmic amplification of specific content causes harm? I can't imagine you would make that case.

If a bartender seeing someone extermely intoxicated and visibly in danger and continues to serve them drinks for profit, they are liable. The algrotithm is spotting pockets of people at risk and then serving them content directly related to fostering those harms. As for how do you know, in court.

Also, I have been in the rooms at Meta, and I can assure you that that talking point is used to help dissuade regulation that they don't want, not a true point of fact that "regulation kills competion"

As 230 stands today it subsidizes Meta and Google because they get to externalize the costs of their harms without having to invest in research to understand product safety or staff to improve the products.

Patently untrue. You conlflate hosting content with amplifying content. Compliance costs are real but you are wrong on who gets hit. It wouldn't stop a startup from from maximizing their product, but they would have to first use reasonable efforts to understand whether it destroys health.

You are assuming that the law would regulate that content as opposed to the architecture. If we pass a law that says 'You cannot use engagement-based ranking to prioritize content known to cause psychological harm,' that doesn't ban a single story. It does require companies study harms and adjust.

So then just get rid of all safety regulations for consumers and workers

We already deal with duty of care expectations in the courts. You act like this doesn't exist in other parts of law

That's rhetoric. How exactly would a duty of care devastate social media?

I'm adding a duty of care to 230, not repealing 230. Major difference.

I didn't say anything that suggests that

They already receive requests and don't delete material. Nothing in what I am saying is about the availability of content

That's not how a duty of care would work. Selective content or actions don't fall under duty of care. If the NYT saw that you paused on a story about suicide and then started delivering only papers on how to and encouraging you to commit suicide that would be the issue.

I don't think this is as absolute as you make it if you have an expectation for a duty of care. I think equating algorithmic amplification with editorial selection is a false equivalency. You know those aren't the same.

Add a duty of care provision for content platforms choose to amplify and let the courts sort it out. Amplification is a different thing than speech

Mike it's not about 3rd party speech but what happens when content is selected and amplified by an algorithm that gives an illusion of approach. Many users aren't actually seeing speech but a highly manipulated version of speech.

Both parties working hard to keep it that way

2026 the year of AI enshittification

Maybe this is all a plan to bring back Purdue Pharma and make oxy available over the counter

It's always the threat that that might leave...

Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI

And @karenhao.bsky.social for the amazing book bookshop.org/p/books/empi...