Facebook turns over mother and daughter’s chat history to police resulting in abortion charges
Deleted
Simple math
Jump
where does that 2000% come from? lol
if you immediately know the candlelight is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago
my understanding was that while google is the main culprit, facebook and google both played a big part in killing it. but since we're discussing meta/facebook here, and they're not blameless, i focused on that.
but yeah, fuck google too.
it also doesn't help reddit much that a bot detection service that caught something like 100-150k bots so far shut down nearly all operations due to the api pricing and reddit's behavior over the protest. they stopped detection of new bots and are only keeping the lights on for three months to let any unbans roll in.
(they're not unbanning bots though, just giving people a fair appeal process, something reddit inc itself could learn from)
they can also scrape them. that's not really the point.
people can dm on lemmy, and only the two instances that host the people on either end of the dm (which may even be the same instance) store that dm. that instance may actually receive a subpoena. but all of this is heavily discouraged by the lemmy interface itself, instead prompting people to set up a matrix account instead, and matrix chats are end-to-end encrypted.
yeah, the difference is pretty stark:
- lemmy: we'll give you a way to dm anyone on site, but please don't use that, if you set up an app on this other open source service we're not affiliated with (which is basically an encrypted discord) we'll do our best to make it as seamless for you as possible. we'll keep warning you for your own privacy.
- meta/facebook: aggressively keeps you on-platform for spying purposes; literally killed xmpp a decade ago and they'll fuckin do it again (if we let them)
They trust me. Dumb fucks.
Mark Zuckerberg
(yes it sounds like satire but that's a real quote)
afaik it's specifically an intentional feature in SDXL to have legible text
It really isn't a strawman. There are two ways you can interpret the above meme:
- We shouldn't allow American companies to spy either
- We should allow Chinese companies to spy too
Interpretation #1 is one of the coldest takes possible on the internet. Read the room, no one was excusing American companies of spying, and plenty of people are mad about Meta, Twitter, and the rest. Hell, the whole reason most of us are here on Lemmy is because we grew tired of more corporate social medias. The meme format here implies that the point expressed is controversial, and interpretation #1 is objectively non-controversial, so the meme is either stupid or that's not what it's saying.
And interpretation #2 is exactly what you just called a strawman here. It's complete lunacy and borderline bootlicking to suggest that we should allow other companies to also spy on us. And why exactly? Just because you want to see that team "win", at the expense of all of us losing even more?
But I have to think you're going with interpretation #2, because of this:
First, neither coup was related to social media.
If those coups weren't related to social media, why bring them up? We're discussing social media here. This only makes sense if you're playing the us vs them of geopolitics, and like, just don't.
In the end, we want none of these companies to spy on us. And unlike domestic companies or those headquartered in allied countries, social media companies in hostile countries not only pose a risk to individual privacy, they are also a national security risk. Which is why China bans western social medias, and why the west should also ban Chinese social medias. Both of these measures are a net benefit, and neither of these measures precludes taking action against domestic or allied social medias -- but unlike Bytedance, which is a Chinese company, western regulation can be enforced far easier against western social medias, and the same can be said about Chinese regulation regarding Chinese social medias.
So you openly admit that you're just detracting from it, focusing on a technicality.
I'm not considering the surface-level meaning of your words here. I'm considering your actions, because it's a hell of a lot harder to lie with actions than with words. And your actions clearly show that you're just propping up Germany's policy of shutting off nuclear and therefore having to run coal where they wouldn't have had to -- and your claim here also confirms that you're willing to be disingenuous and borderline trollish to do that.
But thank you for confirming that you're out of arguments on that topic. I wish your country's leaders could also be this reasonable, because their policy pollutes the same planet the rest of us are also stuck on.
oh wow, i expected some highly tuned community model. these shots are incredible
i only hope that we'll retain the same level of control over the process that we currently have with controlnet and dreambooth/lora
which AI did you use?
is this named after elon's kid?
Removed
How to argue reasonably
Jump
[the illuminati would like to know your location]
Removed
How to argue reasonably
Jump
so the sun is purple but our eyes are flawed and therefore we see it as white when directly watching it and yellow when we look at it through the atmosphere
25% would be one in every four people. That's a lot.
Even if we take a geometric mean on that, 5% is one in every 20. That means most larger groups you've ever been a part of, like a class or something, likely had an ADHD person. It's about the same level of prevalence as Asian people in the US. 5% is not negligible. Even 1% isn't negligible on a society scale, and if you're talking to a community focused on a specific thing, something that only already to 1% of people in an unfiltered sample will be very common in that community.
On top of that, mental conditions like ADHD are not a binary thing that flips in your brain, where you either have it and you get all of the effects or you get none. It's a spectrum, it's a fuzzy category to begin with (which accounts for the wide range of percentages you see), you can feel very ADHD-like effects even if you don't meet the ever-changing criteria of a medical diagnosis. Which is why it changes so much to begin with, because there is no simple marker like with a virus.
In either case, don't gatekeep a condition, especially not in a way that suggests that people should just do better. It's the equivalent of saying "don't be sad" to a depressed person.
fun fact, this is not an american flag, as it is not compliant with the united states flag code. here's a real american flag:
i don't get the hard-on conservatives have for flying decidedly unamerican flags, such as those of the only two enemies of the usa at war that posed a credible threat to the states (the csa and nazi germany). i'm starting to think they just have no clue about flags whatsoever, because much like this thin blue travesty, the so-called "confederate" flag isn't real either, it was only used by a very small and specific military unit within the confederacy. here's what a real confederate flag looks like, actually used by the entirety of the csa's military at one point:
Removed
How to argue reasonably
Jump
put this on the pile of pyramid charts that have nothing to do with pyramids and would have been better expressed in a different format.
like yes, the point conveyed here is not wrong, and i'm not trying to pull a "responding to tone" and discredit it for being a pyramid, but entirely without challenging the point made about arguments here, i find it so fucking stupid to put everything in pyramids. apparently people who like to think they have business smarts absolutely love a structure with few on top and many on the bottom, especially if it comes with a tidy little guide on how to hopefully reach the top. and that shows a worrying mindset, if you think about it for a bit.
holy fuck how
Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol. And that's what all of this boils down to, trust. Do we trust Meta with not exploiting all of our data, and turning it against us at the earliest opportunity? Do we trust Meta that they want to contribute to the fediverse, and not just hurt it because it's a competitor?
By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem. But at the end of the day, it's just practical. Meta has a long and not so proud history of being extremely anti-consumer, and shoving that track record under the rug, trying to absolve them of responsibility and consequences for their actions, under the thought-terminating cliche of an ad hominem is neither productive nor practical.
Yes, people are mad at Meta, and yes, the distrust means their actions are scrutinized more than they otherwise would be, but that doesn't mean that their actions aren't actually massively anti-consumer, and that they aren't a massive liability. In this particular case, you can make the argument that they had a legal obligation to hand over the data, had they not tried to build a walled garden with no privacy they wouldn't have had the data to hand over to begin with.
(also, unrelated: you can embed images using the
syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)