AI fights the Law, and might win

This requirement for direct harm has put a wrench in the gears of anti-tech legislation and executive action for years. Facebook was sued in 2018 in the wake of the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">Cambridge Analytica scandal</a> during the 2016 election, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-dismisses-washington-dc-privacy-lawsuit-against-facebook-owner-meta-2023-06-02/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">but was found</a> to have not misled consumers, just hosted the platform where others ran ads that did the data harvesting, so it was tossed out. Earlier in 2011 the media conglomerate Viacom <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc." rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">also sued YouTube</a> for “massive copyright infringement” as users were uploading thousands of clips of Viacom owned IP. The court found in YouTube favor under the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_(law)" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">‘safe harbor’</a> provision, essentially saying “look, YouTube is just trying to run a platform for video content, it’s not in charge of all the 12 terabytes of videos Viacom doesn’t like. Go after the creators if you want recourse.” With the rise of TikTok, cases around <a href="https://www.law.com/2023/01/05/new-privacy-lawsuits-hit-tiktok-theyre-collecting-and-building-a-database/?slreturn=20240004082403" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">sketchy use of user data</a> and fingerprinting are slow-rolling (is anyone surprised that TikTok data harvests their users?). <a href="https://qchasan.medium.com/ai-fights-the-law-and-might-win-17908cbe480a">Website</a>