We're seemingly talking about different things. I don't think they can put ads next to my content if they scraped it... Then again isn't this how Google works? They even have caches of a lot of the content so you don't need to hit the original one... So we know they store the pages.
I see how if federated it's more of a gray area since it's federated: so maybe they can put ads? Idk seems like another gray area. I wonder how a ToS can be applied from a legal perspective if the content was federated instead of directly posted. Then again Google just looks at a robots.txt file to figure out what/how to scrape. Maybe that should apply here somehow? Idk.
I'm guessing it'll take many years for laws to catch up... And they'll be written by whoever has more money at the time.
Defederation is silly here in my opinion. I'd personally prefer more content and more mainstream stuff. We're basically isolating ourselves. If it's so great, it'll flourish; instead we won't allow it. So much for an open community. :shrug:
We also collectively downvote people who think this which is also silly. Heck even this post is more/less to bully these instances into doing what this group wants.
This is ridiculous. It does nothing but inconvenience people who want shared content. I want the personal ability to chose my content. Removing that at the instance level just takes that away from me.
If they want your data they'll download it with or without federation.
Let's you sort prepaid phone plans in the US. You can even sort by things like which carrier the mvno runs on or if it's unlimited slow data after your allocation.
It only takes looking at your data to figure out your trends, save the trend, and serve you ads.
Think about it: public posts are public. It's the same as you putting a note in the town square. Anyone can look at it and see the username of who wrote it.
Defederation doesn't stop that, it just inconveniences people who want to use/see both sides from one login.
He has no power to do anything really. I'm starting to think more socialism makes sense. I kind of want profit limits on certain essential sectors like food, medicine, probably others.
I'm tired of hearing about how company X made 3 billion more this quarter than last year. It's one thing to be profitable and make something, it's another to give it all to the execs and make consumers eat more year after year.
Raising prices to raise profits when you're still profitable is ridiculous and greedy.
I don't see how Biden could fix the situation on his own. It needs a massive change.
.. you can still send MMS. It works fine. They're not controlling what you can send. Soon they'll support RCS too to have parity with Android. That's a goodwill gesture in my eyes.
Capitalism doesn't pay for ethics, it pays for profits and press. It's paying for RCS support.
iMessage will have no benefit after that: the color of a bubble shouldn't mean anything.
It's a competitive advantage. Nothing wrong with that from a business perspective.
Why should Apple build something to work with Android? That would allow people in Apple's hand to swap. No business reason to do it. Why waste server time servicing a competing platform's user's messages?
Then again, there isn't really a reason why iMessage is a big benefit with RCS, Whatsapp, Messenger, SMS, Signal, etc. exist.
According to the given logic, logic if I reverse engineer Facebook Messenger, I should be able to have my app that talks to FB Messenger users. I would have it until, they block me out. They have a terms of service that likely disallows this usage. They have a right to enforce that.
At the end of the day I could care less about iMessage but can defend Apple's right to be a walled garden if they want, even if I disagree, etc.
Most of these (per the PDF) say 500k to the project, which amounts to nothing actually happening for end commuters.
To me it's actually a spit in the face. Like put a lot of funding on a couple projects and see them to fruition. This is a little to a lot, which will do nothing. The idea is to make voters in a lot of areas think something near them is happening, when in actuality, there will likely be little to no progress from this.
csm10495 @ csm10495 @sh.itjust.works Posts 36Comments 517Joined 2 yr. ago
We're seemingly talking about different things. I don't think they can put ads next to my content if they scraped it... Then again isn't this how Google works? They even have caches of a lot of the content so you don't need to hit the original one... So we know they store the pages.
I see how if federated it's more of a gray area since it's federated: so maybe they can put ads? Idk seems like another gray area. I wonder how a ToS can be applied from a legal perspective if the content was federated instead of directly posted. Then again Google just looks at a robots.txt file to figure out what/how to scrape. Maybe that should apply here somehow? Idk.
I'm guessing it'll take many years for laws to catch up... And they'll be written by whoever has more money at the time.