This can't possibly be true. Why do you think Apple is so popular among tech circles? It's not because everyone collectively decides to read their privacy policies. Apple has to actively advertise they don't collect data.
The simple act of making a spectacle of their products announcements are advertisements. Not clickable ads in a website but an ad regardless. They could quietly release products every year by updating their website but that wouldn't sell nearly as much...
I'm glad you realized the connection with voting, because it is the same issue in a real sense: no one gets to vote for an open or a closed system, they only get to vote for an iPhone or a Samsung (which is pretty locked down) or some random third-party phone that will probably suck; you are acting as if the people who voted for an iPhone are agreeing with every single decision made about that platform instead of merely wanting it "on the balance". I honestly mostly use Apple devices because I think their touch screens and trackpads are so good as to be "evil magic"... I thereby own a zillion of them and even use them as my personal devices despite also currently suing them over this very anti-competitive App Store issue, and yet my "vote"--and the votes of everyone like me (and I imagine there are many many such people)--are being counted by you as "voting with my wallet" for a closed system. The reality is that I am simply making the best of a shitty situation with buying an iPhone, and the fact that Apple is able to get away with having a closed system because of some other key benefit doesn't mean they should get to do so :/. Hell: at this point, it would be extremely expensive to switch platforms, because Apple and Google have conspired to build a massive wall preventing people from importing purchases of apps from one platform to the other. I would even lose easy access to all of the music and movies I had gotten on iTunes (which is another reason a lot of people get Apple devices: because they are tied into a vertical content monopoly and a lot of the content I want is effectively only available from Apple). ...and like, I hope you realize that the ridiculously large number of people who bought and iPhone and then--despite it being extremely difficult to do so with requiring the usage of often scary software from annoyingly people from random websites--jailbreak it so they can fix this one key flaw they see in this product... a number that is already stupid high--we tended to get like 12% of users at steady state--but which would obviously be extremely high if only it could have been easier to do!
I get a feeling you commented after reading the headline and didn't read the article. This is a positive story and I'm glad the person was given the opportunity to chase her dreams.
I second this wholeheartedly, it is a very positive story, albeit with a cheeky title. The article explains how a person in a "higher" position (director of design) made the active choice to change career path and start again as an associate developer.
It didn't come out of thin air, as this person had been coding as a hobby for a few years (Ludum Dare rocks!). So she actually did have some skills, though maybe not as formal or structured as say, a tech recruiter, might want to.
Furthermore, it's great that she is working in an organisation that would support such a change. It makes this career change much easier than having to quit your job and trying to get gigs or get hired without having formal credentials or experience.
Robinhood made a decision that cost its users from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. If there's ever been a more justified reason to give an app a 1-star rating, it's this. Google was out of line.
How is it a net downside? The entire purpose of the App Store being locked down is that it's reliable. There is no way any HR department will launch an investigation because you downloaded an app called Amphetamine. Worst case scenario they go look it up and realize there's nothing more to the situation.
I'd have to see a documented event of this happening rather than a hypothetical scenario to believe a downside actually exists.
Who is dumb enough to think people get drugs by installing an app called Amphetamine, monitors user software installs anally AND also lets users install their own software locally in the first place?
Most corporate PCs are windows. On a fraction of the macs users are allowed to install their own software, on a tiny fraction of those amphetamine is installed, on a tiny fraction of a fraction of those maybe someone exists who has a problem with HR.
I'm not sure the last subset actually exists in the real world nor that we ought to support censorship to help imaginary people deal with imaginary morons.
As far as the ethics of AI goes, would "don't be evil" slogan be better than "do the right thing"?
I'm sure people may interpret things differently but doing the right thing would mean Google making AI that has a positive net impact on society, while "don't be evil" could simply mean good for Google but neutral to everyone else.
It's unfair to say we still use credit because we are complacent. If you stop caring about building a credit score, you will end up paying more money in things like mortgages or car loans. There is a financial incentive to use credit cards (if you don't miss payments) despite the breach of trust.
I didn't say it's just complacency that keeps the credit system going. Low friction purchasing (complacency) absolutely plays a strong role. Trust is important, too (but is less strong than complacency) because the system wouldn't be used at all without it, and, to your point, fear absolutely plays a role as well.
Mark's point was that the post did not break the policies the platform has and he explained in thorough detail why he believed this was the case. The Floyd video was an example of how one policy can be used for good while acknowledging it can also used for bad. I don't disagree that we should ignore our policies because someone posted something we did not like.
For what it's worth, he addressed that some policies do need work and change - specifically the ones about voting, elections, and misleading statements about these.
So, the president can call for military action against American citizens, inside the borders of the United States, in direct contravention of US law (the Posse Comitatus Act), and that's okay? Because you're making it sound like that's totally okay, and I think that adds up to a tiny bit more than "someone posted something we did not like".
edit: 'oarabbus_ is right, as far as I can tell, about the Insurrection Act. Even if they weren't, I suppose it'd be foolish to imagine that the US presidency in 2020 is restrained by mere legislation, save to the extent to which it permits itself to be.
To be clear, I 100% disagree with any use of military action within the States against American citizens.
That being said, what you are saying isn't true. Exceptions to Posse Comitatus include "Federal troops used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case with the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division being sent to curtail the 1992 Los Angeles riots."
Should it be illegal for the President to send troops against citizens to restore order? Perhaps, yes. Is it illegal? Certainly not.
To be clear, the 1992 Los Angeles rights invoked the Insurrection act AT THE REQUEST of the state which is markedly different than Trump's proposal.
The more direct example of invoking the act in spite of opposition from states would be the enforcement of federal law law during the Civil Rights era.
Right, Facebook is not a court, police force, or anything else with legal jurisdiction. Assuming the problem is that Trump is issuing an orders to the military that are illegal, that's not a problem that Facebook can police. The President can likely find another means of issuing illegal military orders that bypasses Facebook.
Reddit and numerous other sites have no issue displaying nipples (and more) with nothing more than a “are you over 18” modal. If any of those sites start running afoul of law enforcement you might have a point.
> So, the president can call for military action against American citizens, inside the borders of the United States, in direct contravention of US law (the Posse Comitatus Act), and that's okay?
Deciding not to talk about something or not to restrict hosting certain posts is not the same thing as thinking they are ok.
So the president, MOVES military against American Citizens and we're all like???? Why is this happening??? That's why information is powerful. I'd personally rather people get mad that he said it and he then does nothing than for him to take action.
Yes, this information needs to stay out there. Stay informed. If this was some troll suggesting Trump move the military against the US, I could see you saying that should be pulled down.
This is the president, as much as I fucking hate him I want to know everything he says. Not because I agree but because to not know what he's saying handicaps my ability to mobilize against tyranny before it happens.
I don't give Facebook's executives the benefit of the doubt in thinking that's why they're leaving it up, but I'd have a very hard time arguing that you're wrong.
I can't really argue with you there. This is one of those situations where the path paved to hell is paved with good intentions in my mind. I don't want Trump saying shit like this, but if any government official is saying something shitty I want to know.
Twitter put a big sticker on it. FB could do the same. Put it behind a click-this-to-see-bad-stuff warning thing. Provide context, etc. The option is not a binary between completely hide/silence/ignore the "most powerful man in the world" or support and just enable him even more.
I can get behind this but then that specific content wouldn't fall under section 230. IANAL I'm not sure I'll let them fight over it.
But if you as a platform control the content you are responsible for the content you publish. Which should be ok right? If it's fact checking and you get sued and the facts are correct, no problem. Well other than all the money you lose, but that's something we need to fix about suing people.
That's how the industry has always worked. Walmart, Costco, supermarkets, clothing stores, pharmacies, etc, all have their own brand of products that they sell on their own stores along with other brands that use their competitor's infrastructure to sell their products. Usually the store's brand is also cheaper.
If true then we should start with legislation to disallow platforms from mandating competitor's pricing if they also sell products in their own platform.
It seems like a good starting solution without having to go for the nuclear option.
This seems like an alarmist article. Don't let big tech expand their reach and power. How is big tech expanding their reach? They never dived into specifics of what big tech is doing the they disagree with.
People already willingly give all their location data to Google and Apple as it is, people always have their phones on them. The least these companies can do is also use it for good.
Yesterday Apple and Google announced a joint effort to track people via Bluetooth to establish who has had contact with who, to help track COVID19 outbreaks.
The system they have proposed is reasonably anonymous and I personally do think they’ve gone into this with good intentions, but as the article notes, when will the tracking stop? And there are plenty of questions about data storage, persistence, etc etc. It’s justified to worry about it, IMO.
Do they have a choice if they want to operate in America?
The article specifically calls out Palantir for giving ICE information, but all the big tech companies are part of government surveillance programs. At this point we're just shifting blame to these companies when the problem is how our government operates.
The simple act of making a spectacle of their products announcements are advertisements. Not clickable ads in a website but an ad regardless. They could quietly release products every year by updating their website but that wouldn't sell nearly as much...