Technology

37720 readers

548 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

U.S. regulator proposes new rules for AI-generated robocalls and robotexts to protect consumers and stop election misinformation by phone (www.engadget.com)

submitted 3 months ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived version

Here is the FCC proposal (pdf)

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has proposed new rules governing the use of AI-generated phone calls and texts. Part of the proposal centers on create a clear definition for AI-generated calls, with the rest focuses on consumer protection by making companies disclose when AI is being used in calls or texts.

"This provides consumers with an opportunity to identify and avoid those calls or texts that contain an enhanced risk of fraud and other scams," the FCC said. The agency is also looking ensure that legitimate uses of AI to assist people with disabilities to communicate remains protected.

Today's proposal is the latest action by the FCC to regulate how AI is used in robocalls and robotexts. The commission has already moved to place a ban on AI-generated voices in robocalls and has called on telecoms to crack down on the practice. Ahead of this year's November election, there has already been one notable use of AI robocalls attempting to spread misinformation to New Hampshire voters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Truck_kun@beehaw.org 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The courts blocked that rule already I think. net neutrality is on hold indefinitely.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

net neutrality is on hold indefinitely.

I would rather say that The fight for net neutrality is forever

Even though progress can feel inevitable, the best laws and regulations are never really permanent; they require maintenance from every generation [...] And it’s still worth fighting for.

[–] Truck_kun@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It's more a joke. At this point ISPs really should be designated a telecom.

But, if Chevron Deference is the reason it's on hold, that's not likely to change until either the legislature passes something to say otherwise, or the supreme court swings the other way/toward normalcy. Which, if Harris wins this election and next election, there is a reasonable chance at. Other than their bitterness, some of the oldest and worst on the supreme court are just hanging on until a conservative takes the executive branch again.

Edit: good reason to get out and vote. Not just ensure Trump doesn't win, but also need the Senate to approve supreme court replacements. Otherwise conservatives will just hold up nominations for 4-8 years until they can nominate someone like Alito or Thomas.

Edit Edit: Additional plea to get out and vote for Senators: even if Trump does win, if conservatives don't hold the senate, he can't put another Alito or Thomas on the court. I don't think dems have the backbone to indefinitely block an appointment, but they would approve someone more moderate probably, that can be pursueded on matters such as net neutrality, abortion.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

good reason to get out and vote.

Well said. I wholeheartedly agree.

[–] Truck_kun@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago

Caused me to look back: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Before Trump every Supreme Court Justice was approved by over 60% of the senate (except Alito and Thomas). After Trump took office, most are close almost 50/50's. None of them manage to reach 60% anymore. Goes to show how controversial Alito and Thomas were BEFORE things became hyper partisan.