There are several companies that provide access to bank payments, but they all tend to have substantial limits, especially for US banking.

If I go to someone and ask for a therapy session, even if they are the most supportive, thoughtful person I could hope to find, it's not appropriate for them to hold it out as proper therapy. We have rules and restrictions on who is allowed to offer certain services, and for good reason. If one asks their therapist about confidentiality, it's highly inappropriate for the therapist to misrepresent the confidentiality rules, also for good reason.

ChatGPT will gladly claim to be able to provide this support, and will promise complete anonymity. It will say that it's able to offer good advice and guidance. As you said, the text it generates will certainly be natural-sounding. It also won't be therapy. It definitely won't be anonymous.

A person who lies about stuff faces consequences. A label on the door of a "medicinalist" that says "No promises to offer truthful information, verify all important things" isn't going to prevent that if they're selling arsenic as a cure-all. If a company wants to offer a service, they should be restricted in what they can claim they are offering.

I mean... Yeah, no shit. It's not therapy, and your chatbot shouldn't be pretending to offer professional services that require a license, Sam.

Let's be truthful. You don't want to have to explain or justify anything that your chatbot says, and you don't want the Courts to be able to analyze whether you've violated any rights or laws either.

Your meaning is unclear for me

The sex crimes stuff is so they can detain LGBTQ youth and issue them whatever the yellow badge equivalent will be.

Well, but they did it the right way.

None. All 4 Democrats on the committee voted in favor. It wasn't a floor vote, it was an amendment to a crypto bill in committee.

His main priority is establishing that the US elections are a sham being manipulated by the Left, so that his administration can step in and take appropriate measures to ensure the security of future elections as things go forward towards the midterms.

Well... as the article pretty explicitly mentions, they would normally have staged resources at a nearer location so that their response could be more rapid, but Noem's new rules hampered them by being overly burdensome. And Texan crews were already operating.

This doesn't invalidate your point, but DF is still under active development. The game has been worked on consistently since the early aughts.

It's not though, it's a very direct exposure to other viewpoints. Those who can't reflect on the consequences weren't going to be convinced by you talking at them in any case.

Pretty sure it's Make America Horrible Again