[anigbrowl]

This is wildly hyperbolic as far as I can see.

The bill (which I do not endorse) is focused on threats to critical infrastructure and other natsec considerations from designated foreign enemies. Also, it's just been introduced and might not go anywhere.

[TravelTechGuy]

How to pass horrible bills:

1. Stuff them with truly horrible ideas. 2. Wait for public to scream. 3. Remove half of the horrible ideas (keeping the core crap, like no FOIAs, privacy violations etc.) hidden and spread amongst hundreds of subparagraphs. 4. Present this is as "fair compromise". Convince idiots from both sides of the aisle that this is good for national security. 5. Pass the law. 6. Profit?

[walterbell]

Competitive LLM reviewers, trained on opinionated data and case law, will change the denial-of-Congress landscape of legislative complexity.

[qbrass]

"We're disregarding public comment over the matter after discovering the majority of the comments were from Russian bots."

[matrix12]

But we've seen hyperbole become the status quo oh too often. Abuse will happen, and to the extent and beyond the limits of any new bills. Give them the power, and they will assuredly misuse it.

[anigbrowl]

I'm saying the description of it is wildly hyperbolic, to the point of being deceptive. Again, this is not an endorsement of the bill.

[ori_b]

> Also, it's just been introduced and might not go anywhere.

The way to prevent it from going somewhere is by raising the alarm loudly. Possibly also by lobbying for legislation that enshrines existing rights.

[eaurouge]

I haven't read the bill.

But, "critical infrastructure", "natsec considerations", "foreign enemies", are such vague terms, that could be stretched to cover all sorts of unforeseen circumstances.

[anigbrowl]

Go read it then, instead of judging it by a few phrases I wrote. I didn't have time to write an explainer essay today.