It's not about nuance. It's about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that's actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn't a white cishet man.
That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.
A lady I know had to divorce her husband after he had a stroke and turned into a raging, abusive narcissist. I can only imagine how confusing and painful it was for her.
The distinction I've been drawing is "corporation" vs "social media corporation". Home Depot doesn't gain market share by damaging the Fediverse, but Meta does. Therefore, I think if Home Depot wants to make an official account or instance, that's fine I really don't care. Meta making an instance? I can't stop them, but I can sure as hell encourage people to not give them power in the Fediverse.
There's the thing about "'Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." But then there's it's corollary "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
I'm other words, Molyneux should know better by now, and the fact that he clearly doesn't can only come from a willful refusal to.
Let's not downplay the value of that photo. Stuff like that is a critical competent component for building AI systems strong enough to visually identify people under a variety of conditions. It's the keystone to a total surveillance state, which itself is the gateway to things like the social credit system used in China.
You missed the point of the article. It's trying to say that it isn't "each side making it about identify." It's trying to say that politics are inherently about identity, always has been, and that's just the true nature of politics in general.
Well I know they forced some subreddits go back to SFW if it was obvious the NSFW was just to protest. Maybe that's the case for the subreddit you're looking at?
I think the critical difference is "Meta pushes for changes" vs "Meta pushes for changes with the support of thousands/millions of users".
If Meta convinces Thread users that a certain change is good for them, it's going to be that much harder for the people developing ActivityPub to push back on those changes. And even if the developers succeed, Meta can just use that to say "fine, we'll fork off and make our own ActivityPub with data collection and advertisements" and if enough instances in the Fediverse are reliant one Threads for engagement they may just switch to the Meta version of ActivityPub, taking a chunk of our community with them.
And maybe that's alright for some folks, but a lot of us don't want any of that to happen, even potentially. I think it's pretty unethical to deliver people into the maw of the beast like that, so to speak.
You're 100% correct, but don't think that's enough for Meta. It's inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it's market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.
You keep mentioning whether it's effective policy, but that has nothing to do with SCOTUS. Their one and only concern is whether the policy is constitutional. Effectiveness is for the other branches of government to deal with.
You do see how it could have a chilling effect on engagement if the "someone" judging you negatively for your vote is, say, a repressive government, right? And what's the point of a social network without engagement?
It's not about nuance. It's about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that's actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn't a white cishet man.
That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.