I think the article is misunderstanding what is happening (though to be clear I think the email is at fault for that). Google is making it so that app developers can integrate Gemini better by allowing Gemini to interact with those apps. There is a menu inside Gemini where you can switch these interactions on and off (Inside Gemini, click your profile in the upper right corner and press apps in the menu).

I’m assuming from the email that this will be enabled by default which is a choice they’ve made and which absolutely could be argued as invasive. That being said you’d actively have to use Gemini and have it be active on your phone in order for it to interact with those apps.

Assuming Google records whatever you do on your phone whenever you do those things, which many privacy minded people of course legitimately worry about and feel uncomfortable with to various degrees, this is not really anything but another way for your assistant to do more things. If they want to read your stuff that’s not really dependent on a switch in the Gemini app.

So if you have Gemini entirely disabled I don’t think this is relevant. Only if you actively seek to use it and do not want it to be able to integrate with external applications will these settings be relevant to you.

I did understand from the article that it was said as a joke. It’s just… A fucking weird joke.

Ok what

I was honestly okay with him using trump’s egocentrism against him but what

How credible is this source? Is there video of this?

I don’t feel very concerned… That’s kind of the point of the service.

Good that there’s an opt-out.

edit: I dug around for it. They seem to mean the literal “Apps” settings page and not the “Settings” page. Every individual app that Gemini is capable of connecting to has a switch there. In Gemini, press your profile picture, then apps. In there you can both access the activity setting and decide which apps Gemini has access to.

Ok.

Feels like the Escobar phone

NICE

That’s some weird shit

Or… Whore thots ^gus

Yay!

This might be the funniest shit I’ve read.

Intel Exhibitionist

Finally! I’ve been waiting to expose my processor

It is more about the fact that when the buyer is committing a criminal act, they can be prosecuted for that criminal act.

It also is assumed that the sex worker will not be interested in helping. It is on the judicial system to find the criminals and prosecute them.

The sex worker is doing something entirely legal. It’s up to the system to protect their right to do that while also protecting them from predation. That’s the thought, anyway.

Sure. That’s a valid question.

Since I’m trying to be pretty neutral, I can only say that such a thing wouldn’t be in the spirit of current legal thinking on the subject.

If I allow myself to deviate a little, I do see the problem. It does restric a sex workers’ ability to sell their service(s) and that is of course a problem for them. I’m personally leaning more towards a well regulated legal market, but I also understand that such a market is difficult to control and I am sympathetic to understand the legal thinking that lead to this current framework because of that.

There are things, other than blanket legalization of buying sexual services, that could be done to help increase the status of sex work which probably should be done in my opinion. Like making it easy for the sex worker, who isn’t doing anything illegal, to file for taxes and get the benefits of others who run their own business. I don’t think those issues exist to intentionally make things difficult. I think they exist because of negligence. They could be fixed, but the thinking seems to be that it is not important.

edit: clarified the intention of a sentence.

I added some more context, but the sex work itself isn’t discouraged by the law (though it certainly isn’t encouraged either - there are certain caveats to the situation). Buying sex is. And that’s what they want this law to do as well.

Do bear in mind that I’m not commenting on whether or not this is the correct way to construct the laws around sex work. I am, rather, conveying what the essence of intent is in the current legal framework.

As a Swede who is unsure that this law will do what it is intended to do, here is what it is actually intended to do and the context in which it is written:

In Sweden it is legal for an individual to sell sex to another individual. Buying sex however, is illegal. This is intended to protect the one selling sex from the buyer. The thought is that there’s no valid reason to criminalise the actions of a person who is already in a pretty exposed situation. This law has been in effect for 26 years.

The intention of this proposed law is to make it illegal for a buyer to order specific porn from a seller, as in requesting that the seller produces a specific thing for the buyer. Which, while “who fucking cares what consenting adults do” is a valid position, is in line with current legal thinking. The intention isn’t to criminalise selling porn, even when it’s been made to order for a buyer. It is to protect those in an exposed situation.

I can’t say if that’s how it will work out however. I’ve heard worries that it will have other consequences.

edit: added a reference to current law.
edit2: 26, not 36.

Just because it’s nonsense, that doesn’t mean it can’t be dangerous nonsense.

“American president starts talking nonsense again as world shrugs and moves on with actual political discussion”

Damn, right after Putin said that he hopes for a good relationship with the pope too!