California is not Colorado nor is it federal

No shit, did you even read my comment?

Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate.

People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No.

Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014:

https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”.

Here’s just one little but relevant section:

Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company’s digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission’s rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: © (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph © in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual’s application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual’s application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years.

So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.

So……OneNote.

Yeah in the US. There are too many different laws and regulations for me to list since they’re often state specific. Take California for example:

https://www.rkmlaw.net/ridesharing-regulations-in-california/

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has passed laws for the operation of a TNC within the state. These laws involve the following:

Licensing, permit and certification requirements

Mandatory Lyft and/or Uber decals on a vehicle’s front and back passenger-side windshields Insurance requirements, including vehicle liability and workers’ compensation insurance

Minimum TNC driver age requirement of 21 years old, with at least one year of driving history

Department of Motor Vehicle record checks required for all TNC drivers

Annual background checks required for all TNC drivers

Mandatory driver training programs to ensure drivers are safely operating their vehicles

Accessibility plans for individuals with disabilities

A Zero Tolerance Policy for drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Required vehicle inspections once per year or every 50,000 miles, whichever comes first

Prohibition against TNC drivers accepting street hails from potential passengers

Prohibition against TNC drivers transporting more than seven passengers per ride

If Uber, Lyft or another ridesharing company is found to be delinquent in following any of these laws, it could face penalties. The CPUC accepts complaints from the public regarding ridesharing services or drivers who are in violation of any of the state’s TNC laws.

No, I’m telling them that the cute, locally owned retailers are in the mall.

Take discord for example - I’m in a small group with like 120ish other people who play an old game online. I also used to be on the subreddit which was small and not garbage unlike the majority of reddit, until I left along with a lot of the others for discord.

The point is there are tonnes of small sub communities on the big platforms. It helps with visibility and user base.

Laws and regulations already exist that all ride share companies have to follow around things like vetting their drivers.

What “represented the internet” in your opinion?

“Small communities” still exist all over the internet, in far greater numbers than before. They exist on the giant social media platforms too. Discord, WhatsApp, facebook, reddit, etc all have millions of “small communities” on them.

Not growing at an absurd rate doesn’t mean their business model is stagnating.

That’s terrible, but you can’t just say “something needs to be done” because a bad thing happened, when the thing wasn’t preventable. Bad people exist, and bad people do bad things.

What do you think could be signed into law that would have prevented that from happening? Would those laws have prevented a taxi driver from doing it? A “friend” giving her a lift?

Ah yes because I’m sure whichever idiots run that site are completely unbiased and not at all stretching the truth to fit their agenda.

“Kids”……yeah right lol

As expected. As long as the videos aren’t uploaded and marked as private I don’t see a problem. You upload a video for the public to watch, why can’t AI “watch” it?

But if you’re legally responsible for the content that is posted on your platform, not many new companies are going to want to take on that risk.

What would likely happen is everyone would still only use the big players, but you’d upload your post/photo/video/whatever and it would be like “your post is saved, pending approval. Expected wait time: 18 hours”. It would be a terrible user experience, but a necessary thing because all it would take is one malicious loser uploading CP hoping to get it through so they can instantly report them to the police and/or file a lawsuit against the platform.

What do you mean by “more local, smaller communities”? Many small social media sites with very few users so moderation is easy? No one would use them because there is no one on them.

Do you mean the raspberry pi is going to have all the storage attached to it, with the optiplex just running Plex/JellyFin/Emby?

How many devices will you be streaming to, and what are they? Will you need to transcode any media to play it on other devices?

They’re opposing the bills because the things they suggest won’t do anything their existing safety procedures don’t do, and reading the companies security/safety protocols and the proposed new ones it’s pretty clear that they are not needed.

In her lawsuit filed against Lyft in January, Willford alleges she was “subjected to unwelcome, nonconsensual sexual contact, touching” and lewd comments during the ride.

Willford was picked up by a different driver than the person identified in the Lyft app, according to the suit.

How would these new bills have prevented this? How would they prevent a Lyft driver from letting someone else drive their car to pick up passengers? How would they prevent lewd comments during the ride? Riders can already record their entire trip on their phone if they want. These companies already do background checks. They already suspend drivers if complaints are made and deemed serious/real. They already ban drivers who assault people or who let other people drive for them.

What exactly do they think these new bills would solve and how?

Straight to name calling and trying to censor people. Hmm, didn’t I just say something about the “progressives” jumping straight to that and it costing them dearly?

Seems you still haven’t learned.

So if those platforms are better everyone will move to them if they don’t like a 2% increase (or 2% decrease) in fees on Patreon. That’s great, that’s how the free market works. Vote with your dollars.

It’s generally not just the battery though. A battery going completely dead in a recent mobile phone and not holding any charge whatsoever or even functioning is extremely rare.

So how does that indicate that their business model is stagnating?

Project 2025 has nothing at all to do with trump or this admin lol. “No due process” only if you ignore all the due process they’ve already had.

Did you just say that the USA started a war with Iran? Lol come on now.

“Progressives” like you spreading “misinformation” and outright lies like you just did are one of the reasons why you lost almost the entire country.