> "NEVER EVER PAY RANSOM MONEY. Please. Even if your business will suffer it will suffer a lot more if you do pay since now it is known you'll cave. Also: you are making the problem larger for others."
These days, companies try to mitigate the reputational harm associated with paying the ransom by instead paying security firms that "specialize in ransomware recovery" and claim to have "proprietary trade secret means of decrypting their clients' files". These firms always just happen to charge more than the cost of the ransom for their services. They then provide a non-itemized receipt, and both parties walk away happy and without having to admit to anything. Here's a good article on this practice if you're interested. https://features.propublica.org/ransomware/ransomware-attack...
It's not removed, but they changed the title to "OpenAI backs Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable". The actual bill text explicitly mentions that it excludes liability for "the death or serious injury of 100 or more people or at least $1,000,000,000 of damages to rights in property caused or materially enabled by a frontier model" (https://legiscan.com/IL/text/SB3444/2025) so I am not sure why the title was changed. The original title of "OpenAI Backs Bill That Would Limit Liability for AI-Enabled Mass Deaths or Financial Disasters" seems like it accurately describes the bill.
Another thing I've noticed is how when you go on the website for a VC funded B2B startup and look at the customers or testimonies they have listed, most of them will be other B2B startups funded by the same VC. It makes me wonder how much of that market is essentially a few friends standing in a circle and passing a $100 bill around, but on a larger scale.
The main problem with 230 is that the courts have decided to treat it as if it removes all legal liability from online platforms, rather than just publisher liability. The way the text was written seems to be intended to protect platform operators from publisher liability but still have them under distributor liability. For example, if you own a bookstore and carry a book that says something defamatory, you can be held liable if you don't remove the book after being informed about its contents. However, a court case soon after 230 passed created the precedent that it absolves online platforms of all forms of liability. This means that if a platform knows it hosts illegal or defamatory content and doesn't take it down, they aren't liable and any legal cases against them will get thrown out due to 230. One of the authors of section 230 later said that "the judge-made law has drifted away from the original purpose of the statute."
>For example, if you own a bookstore and carry a book that says something defamatory, you can be held liable if you don't remove the book after being informed about its contents.
I don't think you can in the US. Maybe elsewhere, but in the US AFAIK the author is responsible for the content they publish, not the bookstores carrying the books.
>This means that if a platform knows it hosts illegal or defamatory content and doesn't take it down, they aren't liable and any legal cases against them will get thrown out due to 230.
No it doesn't. Section 230 doesn't allow sites to host illegal content, of course only "legality" within the framework of US law matters.
All it says is that the liability for user posted content lies with the user posting the content, not the platform hosting it. Which to me seems appropriate.
The ceasefire agreement was mediated by Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan. He announced yesterday that the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. They agreed to base negotiations on Iran's 10-point proposal. [1] Trump released his own statement that the US was agreeing to the ceasefire, again using Iran's 10-point proposal as a basis. [2] Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would comply with the ceasefire. [3] Hours later, Israel carried out a brutal strike on dense commercial and residential areas in Southern Lebanon without warning, killing at least 254 people and injuring more than 1,000 others. [4] The IRGC announced that if Trump didn't rein in Israel, Iran would exit the ceasefire arrangement. [5] Trump then told a reporter that Lebanon was not in the deal, contradicting Sharif's statement. [6] In response, Iran's speaker of the parliament released a statement outlining how the US had violated three of Iran's 10 points and that he viewed a bilateral ceasefire as now being unreasonable. [7]
> Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would comply with the ceasefire. [3]
That's not really what the source says. There is no ceasefire agreement in force at all (only a basis for negotiations with Iran), let alone one that covers Hezbollah.
You're right that Netanyahu's statement contradicts Sharif's statement, which says that "the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies" agreed to the immediate ceasefire. It makes me wonder what was going on behind the scenes.
> Multiple diplomatic sources told CBS News that President Trump had been told that the ceasefire announced Thursday would apply to the Middle East region, and he agreed that included Lebanon. Mediators believed the ceasefire to include Lebanon, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that it did. Araghchi also said it was included.
> On the day of the ceasefire, a White House official told CBS News that Israel had also agreed with the terms of the deal that Pakistan had helped to broker.
> However, the U.S. position shifted following a phone call between Netanyahu and Mr. Trump. Two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News that the changing U.S. positions, and the disjointed remnant of the regime in Iran, are making the diplomacy highly complex.
> Vice President JD Vance told reporters on Wednesday that there was a "legitimate misunderstanding" about the terms of the ceasefire, but he placed blame on the Iranians for misunderstanding that it included their proxy forces in Lebanon.
It's great to see that Israel has veto power over US foreign policy.
In other words, negotiations are underway and Israel hasn't agreed to anything yet, but some people went ahead and declared peace in the Middle East anyway.
Like any other state, Israel has the ability to enter into its own agreements; no one can consent on its behalf and then inform it that it's part of a deal.
The ceasefire agreement was mediated by Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan. He announced yesterday that the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon. They agreed to base negotiations on Iran's 10-point proposal. [1] Trump released his own statement that the US was agreeing to the ceasefire, again using Iran's 10-point proposal as a basis. [2] Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would comply with the ceasefire. [3] Hours later, Israel carried out a brutal strike on dense commercial and residential areas in Southern Lebanon without warning, killing at least 254 people and injuring more than 1,000 others. [4] The IRGC announced that if Trump didn't rein in Israel, Iran would exit the ceasefire arrangement. [5] Trump then told a reporter that Lebanon was not in the deal, contradicting Sharif's statement. [6] In response, Iran's speaker of the parliament released a statement outlining how the US had violated three of Iran's 10 points and that he viewed a bilateral ceasefire as now being unreasonable. [7]
Trump stated "We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated." [1] He also posted an official statement from Iran's minister of foreign affairs saying that Trump had "[accepted] the general framework of Iran's 10-point proposal as a basis for negotiations". [2] The specific version of the proposal they are negotiating with does not seem to be public, but Ghalibaf's statement mentions three of the specific points he views the US as breaking.
Thank you. I guess there is wiggle room on which ten points he believes “is a workable basis on which to negotiate.”
> Ghalibaf's statement mentions three of the specific points he views the US as breaking
Well, sure. We shouldn’t have drones over Iran. Israel shouldn’t be bombing Hezbollah. And Iran probably shouldn’t be bombing Saudi Arabia or restricting transit through the Strait.
That said, both sides are being disingenuous. If there are terms, publish them. If there is only a framework, there is nothing to break.
> I notice now that you didn't fail to understand this distinction in the very next sentence, but that wasn't about Israel
We know Hezbollah continues to operate in Lebanon, that the Lebanese state has disavowed it, and that Hezbollah doesn’t seem to represent broader Lebanese but instead Iranian interests. So until we see hard data that Israel is doing a Gaza campaign across Lebanon, I’m inclined to give benefit of doubt to stated objectives.
> Multiple diplomatic sources told CBS News that President Trump had been told that the ceasefire announced Thursday would apply to the Middle East region, and he agreed that included Lebanon. Mediators believed the ceasefire to include Lebanon, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that it did. Araghchi also said it was included.
> On the day of the ceasefire, a White House official told CBS News that Israel had also agreed with the terms of the deal that Pakistan had helped to broker.
> However, the U.S. position shifted following a phone call between Netanyahu and Mr. Trump. Two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News that the changing U.S. positions, and the disjointed remnant of the regime in Iran, are making the diplomacy highly complex.
> Vice President JD Vance told reporters on Wednesday that there was a "legitimate misunderstanding" about the terms of the ceasefire, but he placed blame on the Iranians for misunderstanding that it included their proxy forces in Lebanon.
It's great to see that Israel has veto power over US foreign policy.
> Most importantly Iran can't afford to keep the strait closed to enforce this. If they block shipping their own will be blocked as well - which hasn't yet happened, they were still allowed to ship oil.
Why do you say this? During the war they set up a checkpoint system so their ships and ships they allowed to pass could still pass through.
this would be a worse crisis than we've just had; it'd put China (if not all of Asia) directly against the USA and would put Australia in a very peculiar spot.
Iran charging a massive toll would also cause a crisis with the gulf states and they aren't going to tolerate it. This is much bigger than Iran vs US, and the idea they hold the cards for such a claim is mostly propaganda.
Just pointing out that for the volume of these ships, it's not really a massive toll. It's honestly a bargain, paid for in a really easy to stomach way by the people who allowed this to happen: Everyone else.
Doesn't explain why UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrian, and Saudis would tolerate a fee transiting the strait. Let alone why America would agree to that in negotiations given they have little incentive to agree to any large demands.
If that is agreed upon it's going to come with some concessions by Iran which is even less likely.
They'd tolerate it because they all poked a giant in the eye and it didn't go down. It's by far the cheapest route to peace any of them have.
USA could agree to it because it's not particularly dependent on that fuel supply and therefore would only pay the costs indirectly via market forces, which as the thief-in-chief pointed out, does (the parts he cares about of) their economy no harm as a net petroleum-product exporter, and above all else, they are losing the war.
> There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.
> Iran, while rejecting all the plans presented by the enemy, formulated a 10-point plan and presented it to the US side through Pakistan, emphasizing the fundamental points such as controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, which would grant Iran a unique economic and geopolitical position, the necessity of ending the war against all elements of the axis of resistance, which would mean the historic defeat of the aggression of the child-killing Israeli regime, the withdrawal of US combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region, the establishment of a safe transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz in a way that guarantees Iran's dominance according to the agreed protocol, full payment for the damages inflicted of Iran according to estimates, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions and resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, the release of all of Iran's frozen assets abroad, and finally the ratification of all of these matters in a binding Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the ratification of this resolution would turn all of these agreements into binding international law and would create an important diplomatic victory for the Iranian nation.
> Now, the Honorable Prime Minister of Pakistan has informed Iran that the American side, despite all the apparent threats, has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian people.
> Accordingly, it was decided at the highest level that Iran will hold talks with the American side in Islamabad for two weeks and solely on the basis of these principles. It is emphasized that this does not mean an end to the war and Iran will accept an end to the war only when, in view of Iran's acceptance of the principles envisaged in the 10-point plan, its details are also finalized in the negotiations.
> These negotiations will begin in Islamabad on Friday, April 11, with complete distrust about the US side, and Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations. This period can be extended by agreement of the parties.
These days, companies try to mitigate the reputational harm associated with paying the ransom by instead paying security firms that "specialize in ransomware recovery" and claim to have "proprietary trade secret means of decrypting their clients' files". These firms always just happen to charge more than the cost of the ransom for their services. They then provide a non-itemized receipt, and both parties walk away happy and without having to admit to anything. Here's a good article on this practice if you're interested. https://features.propublica.org/ransomware/ransomware-attack...
reply