JonEFive @ JonEFive @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not saying I agree with it, that's just the way the laws are written.

A good example of how crappy this law works out is paparazzi. They harass celebrities just to get any halfway decent photo. Then they can sell the photo, the celebrity has no say in the matter. And to make things even worse, if the celebrity happens to use the photo of themselves in any way, the photographer can demand payment because they own the copyright.

*in the US.

In the US, the thought is that if you are in a public place, you have no presumption of privacy. If you're walking down the street, or shopping in a grocery store or whatever else, anyone can snap a picture of you.

Other countries have different values and laws such that you may need a person's permission to photograph them even if they are in a public place.

"Prostitution" references a specific crime. They're saying that she's been convicted of that crime by including it in the headline. "Escort" is an occupation.

Delete that comment you just posted from every Lemmy instance it was federated to.

This whole internet thing was a mistake because it can't be controlled.

Tesla failed at (one thing) is not the same as Tesla failed completely.

Out of curiosity, how much would it cost for you to consider an EV affordable for the everyday person?

The Chevy Bolt has been around for years and can be purchased new for less than $30k. Same with the Nissan Leaf. That's a pretty attainable number for a lot of working adults, and that's assuming you buy brand new. Multiple 2020 Bolts are available near me for around $20k. I'm seeing Bolts that might be another year or two older as low as $15k

I'd argue that price isn't the thing keeping people away from EVs. You can buy a relatively inexpensive EV if you want to.

Second Amendment II - The Gunening

Of course, the only person who would try to do this is doing an essay about marijuana.

MacBook: "Oh, hey chickenlady... I see your up. Yeah, I couldn't sleep either. Why don't you come over here and spend some time in my soft white glow. We can just surf the web and consume for hours."

No, you're right, you should be. We don't want to normalize this shit, it should continue to shock and offend.

These are the dark sides of modern technology. The kids working cobalt mines. The workers being paid pennies to categorize data so bad that it is traumatic to even read it. I can't imagine how the people who have to look at pictures can do it.

I feel like I could handle some dark text here or there, but if I had to do it for 40-50 hours a week? Hundreds of passages every day. That would warp me pretty quickly.

I'd be selling google stock if I had any

If you did, you probably wouldn't. Unfortunate as it may be, Google is an unfathomably massive business that continues to generate value for their shareholders. Any stock sales by an average individual as a protest are meaningless. Even if you sold a million dollars worth of stock, it wouldn't mean anything to them.

Alphabet's market cap is currently 1.7 trillion dollars. With a T. $1,700,000,000,000.

We can extrapolate from there just how much money would need to move for them to pay even a little attention. For example, $170 million dollars is just 0.01%. Granted a move that large from a single investor might cause a brief drop as others sell as well, but investors are just gonna buy it all up at a discount. They'll call it a market correction and keep on going.

I'm not saying you should just roll over and accept their shit, but money is not the way to do it unless you can move more than a billion dollars.

There's a reason that doesn't appear on their site or in their docs any more. It was a canary clause.

Right - "Do no evil" uhhh... Is that not your default setting?

Yup. There are plenty of other options. Nobody needs xitter

Yup. If regulators make the rules, the rules are gonna be stricter and they're gonna come with punishments for not complying.

If Apple satisfies regulators enough that the regulators turn their attention somewhere else before putting anything on the books, Apple wins.

One can hope, but I suspect plenty will still be left when the dust settles and some will even come back. As long as there are actual users to advertise to and the platform maintains even the slightest appearance of legitimacy, businesses don't care. Money motivates these businesses, not morality.

And the concept that all ideas are valid and have the same merit is just as silly as your scenario. The act of locking a person up for very bad ideas is not new or uncommon. For example, making actual plans to commit a serious crime. Or what about lying to a person to encourage them to do something violent? What about encouraging a crowd of people to riot? What about using words that don't directly encourage violence, but imply that they should be angry and should do "something" about it, while giving very clear indications of who the crowd should be angry at? When do we cross the line from an idea to incitement or conspiracy?

Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.

So here we have a former president using very similar language to a historical genocidal dictator to dehumanize those who oppose him. And he's using that language while speaking to a crowd of supporters who might take his words as encouragement to riot or commit violent acts. We have evidence of that mob behavior being a very real possibility, so it is reasonable to presume that the same type of speech may cause it to happen again.

Literally nearly every website on the internet does this. Even the ones you pay a fee to subscribe to.

Are you even a little familiar with GDPR?

Nobody is acting like they have a right to Facebook in this thread. Likewise, nobody is saying that Facebook shouldn't be trying to make money. The issue at hand isn't the choice between a fee and ads. The issue is that you have to pay to opt out of targeted advertising and that they're using dark patterns to encourage people to consent to targeted advertising.

So the suggestion above that this may be illegal is accurate. You're so focused on a person's ability to not do business that you're ignoring that there are laws regulating this type of behavior.

Maybe Apple is learning to implement things themselves before regulators force them to.