Not sure that's a very good deal. But, to each their own, I suppose...

What a great way to go about privacy rights!

I'm sure that $FAVORITE_POLITICIAN will make sure that only $BAD_PEOPLE have their data used against them, and that $HORRIBLE_POLITICIAN will never be able to have sufficient power to turn this against me and those I care about.

Mediatek is a GPL violator. That's even worse.

... but we're ok with that, because we're making a bunch of money, and are increasingly able to influence thought, politics, religion, and behavior.

So, why in the world should re re-do our entire backend when it's accomplishing exactly what we want it to?

Thing is - twitter really isn't supposed to be about listening to individual voices. Rather, it's about listening to and being a part of the mob. It's about groupthink - and it's increasingly curated and guided, as it were, in a way that "encourages" users of the platform to embrace certain worldviews and political stances.

So, while it is incredibly frustrating to me to try to unroll threads at times to get the full picture of a conversation, I strongly suspect that this is by design.

Sunk costs are gone.
The money is spent. Stop worrrying about it.

The question is what will maintenance cost over the next 20 years.

He said profits not revenue.

No utility should ever generate a profit. The money should be spent on improvements or returned to rate payers.

... built in at the kernel level?

But imagine if it has legit health benefits. How long will it be before we're "organ banking" and using manditory blood donations for crimes?

Larry Niven was way too close for comfort....

Facebook has become curated (sometimes user generated) content, with comment sections.

Between their News, censorship, and all the rest, they've already moved from platform to publisher.

Maybe it would be a good thing if they moved forward with the resistance's demands on this one. At least then it would drag the truth out into the light, and they could be regulated and treated like the entity they actually are, instead of that which they pretend to be.

Dorsey's position is basically: "Sure, you have freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want. But have no doubt, we own the town square now. So, sure, you're free to whisper in a proverbial back alley or abandoned lot, but if you don't freely conform to the approved worldview and position, we'll feel free to keep your disruptive and contemptible speech muted."

But... but... their mission statement says that they'll provide news "through the lens of progress".

That means they'll be awesome guardians of the truth, right?

How does that work?

If they are pulled, then how can they be seen to be flagged?

Do^H^HLie better, @Jack.

I miss the days when I was an owner, not a serf^H^H^H^Htenant.

Ya, but with MFA down, now all the bad guys that we pay an annual subscription to protect against (instead of just having a firewall and decent virus scanner on our work machines) can get in and h4x0rz mah docs, amiright?