Just the same at least one state, California is setting to maybe challenge. My reaction personally has been to steadily reduce my consumption of entertainment media over the years, the infallible way to show discontent while supporting constructive opinions that matter.
This makes me recall how Fox News personalities would talk about Trump destroying CNN even before his first term. Or his bid to take over CBS. or his attempt to be on the board at HBO.... what did he say " they need one and they need me...."?
Dangerously I think. When has appeasing a President's personal wish list not been an anti trust argument?
Whatever NASA forgot how to do 25 years ago they are beginning to remember...
Governments will define "sovereignty" geographically first then amend what will fall within that "domain" of responsibility. That is always a lot to all potential users. And nothing scales to fit like a cloud environment.
wrong topic , sorry.
If Ukraine did nothing they would have been taken over, another nation would likely have been threatened, and we would likely be debating drones being used by THAT nation to kill Russians by now.
The description reads like many a ntlm/cifs exploit.....
I don't know, having any file with a script extension parse for the word "autorun" then execute any path in that file as root....? That's hard to top. .
Not a web dev in any way..... but Ruby has at least some use? The solution tells me usage is not extensive and if it works a comfortable little niche is reinforced.
Your intrepretation leaves a lot to be desired. The main issue is you do not understand my argument at all.
I am not objecting to the stuff sold, I object to their harvesting procedures. In other words, this is not matter of their agenda. This is instead a matter of harm done in creating the stuff they sell.
In the chemical industry there are rules and regulations about disposing of pollution. In Animal Husbandry there are rules and regulations about humane slaughter and how you deal with sick animals. In the laundry industry there are laws about the disposal of the toxic chemicals used to clean clothing.
Here they are collecting private information and we are objecting to the methods they use to collect that information. This is VERY different from objecting to their agenda. I do not care if they lie about everything.
Instead, I object to the massive harm caused not by what they say, but how they collect their product. I insist that we find a way to prevent them doing that harm not to the people that pay for their services, but instead to the people they consider to be their animal herd.
This is not about free speech - they can say anything they want to.
What they cannot do is harm the people (adult or children) that are NOT their customers but instead their product. You cannot treat people as a crop. Not even if they are foolish enough to agree to it. Not if they are adults, not if they are children, not if they are senior citizens.
The people that signup to Facebook, Instagram, etc are NOT customers and are NOT media consumers. They are the steak that is chopped up and served to the advertisers.
As such, we have the right to demand that the steak be treated well before they are served.
Right now, their are no regulations about how the companies treat their product. We need to create those regulations, not regulations about what these social media agenda may be.
So separating social media users into paid subscribers and as you put it "animal herds" will protect the subscribers rights while ignoring everyone else's? I see your issue. You believed, and rightly so that I do not support the corporate monetizing of some public opinions therefore labeling differing opinions invalid for no other reason other than being diffdrent.
Highlighting that corporate social media platforms promote mob mentality to push their agendas was my point. Corporations do in fact use moderation to enforce some agendas while marginalizing others to push their agenda. I saw no point in summarizing your original post which discussed (corporate) monetization , and advertising. I chose to point out the social marginalization of opinions not in the corporate social media platform's agenda.
What exactly did I do except expand on certain issues and what was I inaccurate or contrary about? Then, flamebait...? Really?
I am for free speech but it's that false pretense that a sold service by any corporation is what's causing more harm than good. Every media service has an agenda, to promote themselves. A corporation with a primary responsibility to shareholders is the worst. A hands off attitude in regards to regulating speech gets partisan mobs, then self regulation meaning partisan managed mobs, then an attempt to have a state charge in to impose guidelines. By then a new platform emerges then its back to the beginning of the cycle. Our current president as you noticed even decided to raise a few billion dollars and jump straight to the end of the cycle in the name of free speech, the most free speech as hailed by sympathetic news outlets.
Once you separate adult interests from children's interests much of those adult dark patterns become just interactions.
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
