Is it? The role of government is to clean up individuals who cause trouble for the population at large.
Poor people who trade their grocery budget for gambling undeniably cause trouble for a population. Do rich people who trade their luxury handbag budget for gambling equally cause trouble for a population?
And the IP does not belong to the American government, why are taxpayers forced to subsidize such an expensive and potentially dangerous endeavor anyway? Not to mention that IP theft hs two metaphors in it - property, and theft, as the equating of intellectual property - a statutory creation - and real property - which exists unless you don't believe in your lying eyes - is ultimately the bad faith muddling of legal fiction and reality. America would absolutely know the difference, as one of the most prolific thieves of real property in recent memory (see: why and how the state of Georgia exists in the first place, or 'manifest destiny', or 'civil asset forfeiture'). Since there is no private property in anything close to the way the west conceptualizes it in China, nor anything resembling rule of law, what even gives America the right, beyond realpolitik, to even assert not just equivocation but effective extraterritoriality considering that American courts have a presumption against extraterritoriality as part of its doctrines.
This is not to endorse the CCP in any of its actions, but it is really not the business of the American government to impose its definitions and legislations upon the world in such a cavalier fashion. The jingoistic stench is the free prize, and it creates an artificial unifying point for the CCP to rally its citizens, who all go through indoctrination in nationalism but certainly by no means all buy into it, to focus on something that, probably thanks to the lack of cultural and historical competence amongst government officials in general, reinforces the primary raison d'etre of the CCP in the first place. After all, it's effectively the last country to take Westphalian Sovereignty at face value, however insincere it might be. I would categorize American policy as neo-imperialist, but are Americans even bothered by the idea that they are the evil empire? Are we the baddies?
This is my main objection to abusing chatbots. It has nothing to do with the victimization of the chatbot, but I have to imagine it might affect your own social wiring to be abusive to a seemingly sentient creature.
Was that research into violent FPS video games per chance? And if that research showed no correlation between players of those games and their behavior in the real world (I can't remember if it did or not, or if it was inconclusive), I wonder what the difference is between that and interacting with things like chatbots? Is it because gamers have a hard line differentiation between real world and the game world that keeps actions in the latter from contaminating the former? And interacting with a chatbot is too similar to interacting to a human via a messenger application?
No, I wasn't thinking of that - I was thinking explicitly of how treating "inanimate objects" poorly tends to decrease empathy for other people as well.
But those aren't "X", they're "Xbox" and "XCloud". It has to just be the "X". And yes there's an Xbox logo that's just an X, but it's stylized quite differently than Elon's dumb X, and it's a different thing (gaming).
