You don't accept it, because that's bullshit. You also don't accept that it's somehow your fault that society (and your employer) is okay with that kind of injustice.

I think there are two sane choices, you named one that's really a good idea cause you do not have to take that shit.

The other one would be sharing this situation with other nurses, forming a union or joining one, and going on strike. Letting the hospital see how well it functions when only those lazy doctors doing 1% of the necessary work and getting 2 thirds of the cake show up.

A year ago I would have said climate change for sure, but now WWIII is making a comeback so it's up for debate.

Really you're not from the US? I was so positive. Sorry for assuming

Course they can. It's like the easiest form of government to set up. Way easier when you don't have to actually count the ballots.

Best we can do is Modi

Of course you regulate software in the abstract. Have you ever heard of the regulations concerning onboard navigation software in planes? It's really strict, and mechanics and engineers that work on that are monitored.

Better exemple: do you think people who work on the targeting algorithms in missiles are allowed to chat about the specifics of their algorithms with chat gpt? Because they aren't.

Do they really? Carving into people's flesh causes controversy? The US sure is wild.

Even if some of my examples do cause controversy in the US sometimes (I do realize you lot tend to fantasize free speech as an absolute rather than a freedom that - although very important - is always weighed against all the other very important rights like security and body autonomy) they do stand as examples of limits to free speech that are generally accepted by the large majority. Enough that those controversies don't generally end up in blanket decriminalization of mutilation and vandalism. So I still refute that my stance is not "the default opinion". It may be rarely formulated this way, but I posit that the absolutism you defend is, in actuality, the rarer opinion of the two.

The example of restriction of free speech your initial comment develops upon is a fringe consequence of the law in question and doesn't even restrict the information from circulating, only the tools you can use to write it. My point is that this is not at all uncommon in law, even in american law, and that it does not, in fact, prevent information from circulating.

The fact that you fail to describe why circulation of information is important for a healthy society makes your answer really vague. The single example you give doesn't help : if scientific and tech-related information were free to circulate scientists wouldn't use sci-hub. And if it were the main idea, universities would be free in the US (the country that values free speech the most) rather than in European countries that have a much more relative viewpoint on it. The well known "everything is political" is the reason why you don't restrict free speech to explicitly political statements. How would you draw the line by law? It's easier and more efficient to make the right general, and then create exceptions on a case-by-case basis (confidential information, hate speech, calls for violence, threats of murder...)

Should confidential information be allowed to circulate to Putin from your ex-President then?

Oh yeah? And which restriction of free speech illustrating my previous comment would is even remotely controversial, do you think?

I've actually stated explicitly before why I believe it is a thing: to protect political dissent from being criminalized. Why do you think it is a thing?

Yeah, a bunch of speech is restricted. Restricting speech isn't in itself bad, it's generally only a problem when it's used to oppress political opposition. But copyrights, hate speech, death threats, doxxing, personal data, defense related confidentiality... Those are all kinds of speech that are strictly regulated when they're not outright banned, for the express purpose of guaranteeing safety, and it's generally accepted.

In this case it's not even restricting the content of speech. Only a very special kind of medium that consists in generating speech through an unreliably understood method of rock carving is restricted, and only when applied to what is argued as a sensitive subject. The content of the speech isn't even in question. You can't carve a cyber security text in the flesh of an unwilling human either, or even paint it on someone's property, but you can just generate exactly the same speech with a pen and paper and it's a-okay.

If your point isn't that the unrelated scenarios in your original comment are somehow the next step, I still don't see how that's bad.

I guess let's deregulate guns then. Oh wait.

Not everything is a slippery slope. In this case the scenario where learning about cybersecurity is even slightly hinderedby this law doesn't sound particularly convincing in your comment.

That LLM is really pro-Macron, I wouldn't take its opinion at face value.

The parts about defending democracy, addressing climate change, and preparing France for crises, in particular, are pretty ironic when you take into account the fact that both Amnesty International and the European Court of Human Rights have spoken up against his frankly appalling handling of the yellow vest crisis (the latter has a procedure against the French State dor acts of torture against demonstrators), that he's been torpedoing our public health system even during the pandemic, and that his administration has been found guilty of "climatic inaction" by our own courts... The list goes on. For a while, "to Macron" in Ukrainian meant talking a lot while doing nothing. Maybe the LLM bought into the political communication.