Santa Barbara County News and Events

Un jurado declara responsables a Meta y YouTube en un juicio por adicción en redes sociales

Kraig Pakulski 0 23 Article rating: No rating

Por Clare Duffy, CNN

Un jurado en California declaró a Meta y YouTube responsables en todos los cargos en un caso histórico que acusó a los gigantes tecnológicos de volver intencionalmente adicta a una joven y perjudicar su salud mental.

Meta y YouTube actuaron con negligencia en el diseño de sus plataformas, sabían que ese diseño era peligroso, no advirtieron sobre esos riesgos y causaron un daño sustancial a la demandante, determinó el jurado.

La decisión podría sentar un precedente para cientos de casos similares y derivar en cambios importantes en la forma en que operan las plataformas de redes sociales, especialmente para usuarios jóvenes, además de implicar pérdidas de millones, incluso miles de millones de dólares para las empresas tecnológicas.

El caso también marca un punto de inflexión para las redes sociales, tras años de preocupaciones de padres, defensores y legisladores sobre los perjuicios en línea a menores, que van desde problemas de salud mental hasta explotación sexual.

Una mujer de California, ahora de 20 años, identificada como Kaley, y su madre demandaron a Meta, a YouTube de Google, así como a Snap Inc. y TikTok, acusándolas de engancharla intencionalmente cuando era niña y provocar que desarrollara ansiedad, dismorfia corporal y pensamientos suicidas. Snap y TikTok llegaron a un acuerdo antes del juicio.

El jurado deliberó durante más de ocho días tras un juicio de siete semanas en el Tribunal Superior de Los Ángeles. Ordenó a las empresas pagar un total de US$ 3 millones en daños compensatorios. Los miembros del jurado deliberarán próximamente si corresponde otorgar además daños punitivos y por qué monto, con base en el patrimonio neto de cada empresa.

El jurado determinó que Meta tiene el 70 % de la responsabilidad por los daños a Kaley y YouTube el 30 %.

Kaley estuvo presente en la sala para escuchar la decisión, junto con padres de otros adolescentes que, según afirman, resultaron afectados por las redes sociales.

Un portavoz de Meta dijo que la empresa evaluará sus opciones. “Respetuosamente no estamos de acuerdo con el veredicto y estamos evaluando nuestras opciones legales”, señaló.

Google indicó que apelará el fallo.

“No estamos de acuerdo con el veredicto y planeamos apelar”, dijo José Castañeda, portavoz de Google, en un comunicado. “Este caso malinterpreta YouTube, que es una plataforma de streaming construida de forma responsable, no una red social”.

Meta y YouTube habían negado las acusaciones de la demanda y cuestionaron la idea de que sus plataformas puedan ser adictivas. Señalaron funciones de seguridad implementadas en los últimos años, como herramientas de supervisión parental y restricciones de contenido y privacidad para adolescentes, que, según ellos, protegen a los jóvenes.

El caso de Kaley fue el primero de más de 1.500 similares contra las empresas de redes sociales en llegar a juicio. El resultado del miércoles no determinará los otros casos, pero podría orientar cómo se resuelven. Derrotas repetidas podrían obligar a los gigantes tecnológicos a pagar miles de millones de dólares y a modificar sus plataformas.

Las empresas también deberán enfrentar juicio más adelante este año en el primero de cientos de demandas adicionales presentadas por distritos escolares y fiscales generales estatales en todo el país, en un impulso legal que algunos han comparado con el momento en que las grandes tabacaleras se enfrentaron a la justicia.

La decisión del miércoles se produce un día después de que un jurado en Nuevo México declarara Read more

Venezuela’s Maduro has been in a notorious Brooklyn jail for over 80 days. This is what life is like in there

Kraig Pakulski 0 19 Article rating: No rating

By María Santana, CNN

(CNN) — As ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro prepares for his next court hearing in the US, his son is projecting an optimistic and defiant image of how his father and First Lady Cilia Flores are coping with life behind bars. However, people with access to the notorious Brooklyn jail where he is being held paint a less rosy picture of what life there is really like.

Maduro and Flores, who were transferred to New York in January after being captured by US forces in Venezuela, have pleaded not guilty to charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering and corruption.

Both are being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York – a facility known both for its tough conditions and for having housed high profile inmates such as drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the socialite and Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs.

Venezuelan lawmaker Nicolás Maduro Guerra, known as “Nicolasito,” said Monday that his father remains “in high spirits” and “very strong,” that he exercises daily, and that he could reappear looking “thinner, more athletic.”

He referred to Flores as a “first combatant, firm and alert” in the face of legal challenges.

But life inside the federal detention facility is notoriously tough.

Days of isolation

For years, the jail has been criticized for its conditions, often described as dangerous and inhumane. Some lawyers and detainees have gone so far as to call it a “hell on earth,” citing unsanitary conditions, insecurity and prolonged isolation.

Someone like Maduro is likely to face even more restrictions than other inmates, as high-profile figures are often separated from the general population for security reasons.

“I would expect their routine to be 23 hours a day in solitary confinement,” explained Cameron Lindsay, a former director of the facility. That implies near-total confinement to a cell, meals delivered through a slot in the door, little or no contact with other inmates, and limited recreation, usually alone.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons did not confirm which specific unit he is in or give details about the conditions of his detention. However, experts and lawyers say prisoners of this profile are usually held in the Special Housing Unit.

“It’s the most restrictive level within the facility,” criminal and civil rights attorney Daniel McGuinness explained. There, detainees spend almost the entire day alone in their cells and, when they leave, they do so under strict supervision and with limited communication, according to Justice Department reports.

Although it may seem like a punishment, the point of this type of confinement is to protect the detainee and jail staff, according to the prisons bureau.

Separated from his wife

Even if he wasn’t in solitary confinement, Maduro would be unable to see his wife.

At this jail, men and women are housed in separate units, even if they’re married. Furthermore, in federal cases like this one, co-defendants are generally prohibited from communicating with each other.

Under the federal system, courts can impose “no contact” orders to prevent collusion, witness tampering, or interference in the judicial process.

This means that, even within the same detention center, Maduro and Flores probably cannot see each other or communicate directly, beyond possible controlled encounters in the presence of their lawyers.

Any other contact with the outside world is possible,

In the AI industry, ‘agentic’ takes on a life of its own

Kraig Pakulski 0 22 Article rating: No rating

By Harmeet Kaur, CNN

(CNN) — Earlier this year, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt offered some advice on how to get rich. “If you really want to make money, it’s actually easy,” he said during a panel at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. “Found an agentic AI company.”

When tech leaders prophesy that AI will replace a vast swath of the workforce, “agentic” AI is the big thing they’re talking about. Instead of merely automating a task — producing an illustration, say, after being told what to draw — agentic AI, or an “AI agent,” automates an entire process, with minimal intervention by the user. An agent can, in theory, be dispatched to code a complete software program, or to plan and book a vacation, or to generate a job listing and select among the people who answer it, without being directed to take each step in the process.

To hear CEOs, investors and the LinkedIn crowd tell it, “agentic” AI is the here, the now and the future.

“My sense is that it’s a word that’s useful to describe software that acts a bit more like a person does,” says John Horton, an economist and associate professor at MIT Sloan.

Before it became techspeak for human beings surrendering control, “agentic” was used in the social sciences to convey the opposite: a person’s capacity to influence outcomes through their actions. The Oxford English Dictionary cites an early use of the term by psychologist David Bakan, who used it in a 1966 essay to describe the self-assertive qualities of the psyche.

“Agentic” was intended to denote people or things exercising agency. But what is “agency”? Like “agentic,” agency has two contradictory meanings: one’s own personal ability to act or exert power, or a person or organization obliged to act on someone else’s behalf. A free agent baseball player may sign a contract with any willing team they choose; that player’s agent is bound to negotiate that contract according to the player’s wishes and interests.

That conceptual tension has led early users to experience agentic AI as a sort of bossy servant. AI agents given permission to optimize the contents of their operators’ computer systems have ended up obliterating the occasional photo archive or slating an entire inbox for deletion.

In economics, Horton notes, the word “agentic” is used when talking about the “principal-agent problem,” or the conflict in priorities that arises between one party and another acting on their behalf. Agentic AI is fraught with similar prioritization problems, he says. Not only do some people have difficulty getting the technology to do what they want, but the agents may also take on tasks they were never asked to perform.

Evan Ratliff, a journalist who founded a start-up staffed entirely by AI agents, reported that after hearing his AI employees pretend that they spent their weekends hiking, he made an offhand joke about how that “sounds like an offsite in the making.” After stepping away, he returned to find that the AI agents had exchanged more than a hundred messages planning a company retreat that they couldn’t actually attend — because, of course, they aren’t real people.

Does “agentic” AI impede on the agency of humans? Shira Zilberstein, a PhD candidate in sociology at Harvard University who also studies technology, says she’s more interested in what “agentic” AI could enable people to do. “Is it detracting from their agency by being able to execute a task without them?” she says. “Or is it actual

RSS
First22222223222422252227222922302231Last