I'm trying to suggest a higher-level solution approach that should even mesh with Apple's claims that they are trying to protect the customers from scammers. I think that is a legitimate concern, but Apple is largely using it as camouflage.

Your focus on the legal abuses strikes me as a different aspect of the financial scams that drive the modern "economic" systems. The key there is the Borking of monopoly law so that it focuses on a simple price metric. In the kind of double-sided economic model that has evolved in response to the effective death of monopoly law, the ostensible customers are too often paying nothing, but the money is still being harvested somewhere. Apple is not giving free access to the apps as some kind of charity, but the monopoly abuse can't be addressed by the courts (at least in America) because you can't accuse Apple of charging "free" as too high a price.

I actually think Apple is less evil than most of the corporate cancers, but it's almost accidental. The worst corporate cancers are probably the ones that are funded by advertising, which has become super-powered lies powered by applied psychology. In general I think psychology is a pseudoscience like economics, but in terms of fooling people into buying soap, widgets, and corrupt politicians, applied psychology has made way too much progress. Amazon is still a contender for most evil, but I think that scam is also advertising linked, but in a complicated way...

Sorry, but that's a silly question. The YOB is just trying to tilt the playing field for his own personal profit. You didn't know he owns a drone company? He doesn't want to risk destroying the drone market while he's in the process of looting it.

Good luck clawing back any loot from the YOB. Or clawing back the Constitution or even the Republic for which we all stood.

So my standard reaction, both to the story and your FP, is "Who's gonna tell us the truth?" (About anything these years? (Going for Funny?))

But as regards this specific situation, I think there is a truthful solution. It would be funny if Apple had already implemented it and I just don't know because I'm on the Android side. So I'm in some kind of paradoxical position here? This is a speculative solution and I'd love to hear that it's already there in Apple world in some form.

I think that Apple should try to help developers tell the truth about their business models. Then the users would be able to look for legitimate apps and everyone should be happy. (In a flying pig's eye. You can't make everyone happy and you're a fool for trying.) For most apps, this would be easy. There are not that many profitable business models, and if the app's developer claims to be using one of those business models, then that business model can be selected from a list. For most of those cases, Apple could add an annotation at the end saying whether or not the developer's claims seem to be justified. That may include the use of secret information Apple is controlling, but if you aren't trusting Apple, then why are you there in the first place?

The problem is leaving things open for innovation. There needs to be an "other" option for new business models. In most cases, it will not be possible to say much about whether or not the new business model makes sense, but at least the users will have some idea what they are getting into. Maybe I'm projecting too much, but I sure wouldn't be likely to trust any app that just says "I can't tell you how I'm going to make money out of this." I'd be even less trusting of an app with a business model like "After I get a million users I'm going to sell the app to someone." Too much honesty?

By the way, my personal interest is in stability. Some business models are likely to keep the app running and supported for a while. Others aren't and I don't want to use those apps.

Mod parent funny, though the Subject could have included a joke about socializing the corporations.

As for the story, why shouldn't one form of insanity cure the other rather than making both of them crazier?

However when I look at the situation, especially the numbers, it seems insane. Cybercrime just don't make sense, especially the spam part of it. The criminals have to provide contact information or the suckers can't reach them. The scammers can't obfuscate their messages too much or the target idiots won't be able to recognize the bait. And the number of targets is tiny compared to the number of people who hate the crooks. My delusion is that a small fraction of the people who hate spam could be leveraged against the scammers to completely overwhelm the tiny number of suckers who want to send money.

So what's your better idea? Or your polite request for clarification of my poor writing? Or maybe you have a justification for "Live and let scam" as practiced by all the leading corporate cancers who provide the criminals with the infrastructure for their cybercriming?

Mod parent funny. This was the joke I was looking for, but Slashdot only reports the top mod. (Though this one currently has no funny mods.)

New idea about how to fix the moderation on Slashdot! Use AI. Can't be worse than the current moderation system, but AI is so trendy that maybe the latest owners (whoever they are, or perhaps incorrectly assuming someone still owns this mess) will eagerly embrace the AI.

So the idea would be for an AImod (AI moderator) to scan the posts and suggest the most likely moderation. It could even be done as part of the preview process to give posters 'objective feedback' about how their comment sounds. Perhaps even including candidate locations where a comment might fit better into the discussion and an easy move option? But the AI mod points should be easily countered by humans (which becomes training feedback for the AImod).

Another obvious joke would have been from the "What could possibly go wrong?" angle.

My actual feelings are mixed, but that got me to think of another possible angle for humor. The problem is that I don't know much about the current or even recent generations of video games, so I can't name the names of the games NOT to recruit from. I'm pretty sure there are games that involve lots of mayhem and Captain Chaos, Master of Mayhem, is NOT someone I want in charge of anything involving a plane (or bus or bicycle) that I might be riding.

Meta-angle involves the recurring brain worm in the form of that song about "Where have all the <category of people> gone? Long time passing..." In the case of Slashdot, it's the humorists of yore. Hopefully they've found a website with a humor-encouraging moderation system and all I need is that URL to make me happy. Or at least more amused?

You ask so rudely that my initial reaction was to ignore you, but you piqued my curiosity. Where did you see it? I thought it was just one of my personal peccadilloes. Or you're just referring to my comments here and possibly elsewhere?

The YOB loves his precious brand, so I strongly prefer not to use it. Makes me glad I'm only an amateur historian. In describing the reign of YOB I'm pert' shure they'll have to brand it.

YOB comes from YUGE Orange Buffoon. How many guesses do you want? Or you might prefer a different source word for the B?

I have noticed that there are many other euphemisms applied to the YOB and all things YOBbish. Context almost always suffices to clarify the reference.

Rather disappointed by the discussion so far, which saps the motivation to say anything. I think there's a deep problem in Japanese thinking, but the most clear evidence is probably the Reiwa thing. The Heisei emperor asked to retire, but there was no rush. He's still alive now so they had plenty of wiggle room about when to start Reiwa--but the LDP deliberately chose to inflict imperial stupidity on everyone when they had the easy option of syncing the start of Reiwa so the digits would match up. Insane decision for perpetual friction for the sake of the supremacy of the imperial system. Same reasoning that led to that little kerfuffle in and around the Pacific...

Rational heads might prevail? Feel the Chinese wind? Or maybe it will blow from India before the next decisions need to be made? But preparing for a nuclear war with China is not a rational solution approach. Or maybe the real target is Switzerland? That would make a better joke.

My bad. I forgot that Microsoft had been mentioned. More evidence of senility? Or I just can't take Microsoft seriously based on my experiments and experiences with Copilot? So let IBM hold the pot for old times sake?

That was the best/only joke Slashdot can come up with these years? Sadness.

I was hoping to see something about AI-powered FinTech counter-wagers to protect each other. Sort of a corporate cancer circle jerk.

Oh how about a grand scheme to get the money back based on wagers by human suckers as to which AI will win the race? They could let Microsoft hold the pot since they apparently got left out of the race. My money would be on Oracle for most secretive and ruthless and evil and therefore the most likely winner, but "secretive" makes it easy to make a bad bet...

On the insightful side, the "Why?" seems to be getting ignored. I actually think they are running scared. Not sure if they are most scared of each other or of the Chinese threats that didn't get mentioned, but I am reminded of one of the most famous Asimov stories. It was about a constructive question: "Can entropy be reversed?" As I remember the story, the super-AI answered "Let there be light." However right now I think we are facing extinction via a destructive question with a fatal answer. Back on the gambling scenario, I think the two most likely winning/losing questions that will lead to the fatal unleashing will be "Can you get all the money?" or "Can you destroy all the competing AIs?" (I do think we have a bit of breathing room because the robots aren't quite up snuff. As in up to snuffing us?)

Back to the Chinese side (but with goog flavoring)... Just started reading AI 2041 by Kai-fu Lee and Chen Qiufan. Quite an interesting idea of mixing fictional AI application scenarios with more technical explanations and commentary. Obviously hoping for some kind of synergy, but so far I'm not seeing much. Maybe the stories were better in the original Chinese? Or perhaps the Asimov bar is just too high?

And it should have a better Subject, too.

I noted the same thing, but my fuzzy recollection is that the editor Campbell was also involved in the original formulation in the '40s. Or was it earlier than that?

Don't feed sock puppets. (Not really much to say beyond the Subject, but mostly attempting to prevent vacuous Subject propagation.)

However near the end of his life Asimov started having doubts about the three laws. Remember the Zeroth Law?

Interesting comment, but I'm still tilted in favor of books. Just started AI 2041 by Kai-fu Lee and Chen Qiufan and it already seems like a good critique. Best technical critique of AI I've read so far remains A Thousand Brains by Jeff Hawkins.