Yeah but they are taking your data from the laptop your mum bought yesterday and put all the family vacation pictures on. Mum didn’t know she had to kill off OneDrive or Microsoft will hoover up and monetise your memories.

They ensure content never leaves by having it be so low quality that nobody will want to take it away.

It’s the Brussels effect, it’s been mandatory in the EU for a while now.

I don’t get what FSD adds to the highway experience though, a Kia can drive hundreds of kilometers on a highway with basically no input as well.

AI makes revenue go down, stock value go up. The real economy doesn’t matter, only Wall Street vibes.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

MS hasn’t released an Office version outside 365 for 8 years.

365 is Office for them.

Enterprise lags behind Home and Pro. Consumers are QA for Enterprise.

There was no header on the request saying I want ads though

One of their access points has saved my skin twice now in the past 2 months, so I’m happy it exists.

I feel “tech” communities have always been more about smartphones and startups rather than actual tech.

Is there a danger that unscrupulous actors will try and build out a Wikipedia edit history with this and try to mass skew articles with propaganda using their “trusted” accounts?

Or what might be the goal here? Is it just stupid and bored people?

This.

Hungary has this thing where the agitprop always gets some footage taken before the protest starts so the crowd looks smaller as it’s only the early people there from police drones.

You can’t fly your own drone to counter the narrative.

Iran already tried to kill Trump before the election

about laws in general

Terms of Service aren’t laws. Breaking them is not illegal. It’s like using the waterslide while sitting and not lying on your back. In fact, it’s explicitly legal to use an adblocker and control what happens on your device in both the EU and the US. There are ongoing debates whether the surveillance required for blocking adblockers is legal in the EU.

Google does break laws all the time by the way, and is holding a monopoly. If people had to pay for Youtube, alternatives would spring up overnight, but since you can still watch Youtube free, they can’t.

Also, I’d be the happiest person if Google finally figured out how to block people with adblockers completely, so that the majority of people would wean themselves off of one of the world’s biggest disinfo peddlers.

Tencent would never allow it.

The US has a sale-or-ban order in force right now, it is not up to Tencent, but the Taco King right now.

Besides it’s software, that has no subsidiaries.

You must mean assets. I’m talking about the legal entity, that’s what subsidiary means, a local US sub-company owned by the Chinese parent company. US Tiktok operations are owned by the local US subsidiary Tiktok Inc, incorporated in California, owned by Bytedance. That ownership relation is entirely regulated by US law.

In this case there is nothing to steal.

$10 billion in US revenue, the market share and the cultural, societal and political impact of the platform is there for the taking.

You can do so to the local subsidiary

Tiktok?

no state should have the power to execute people

I would present a counterargument to that, as all states in the world ultimately have this power, only the circumstances differ. I mean, grab a gun and try to shoot at armed police anywhere in the world. You will be killed, and nobody can sue the state or the police who shot you for unjustly executing you. Killing you is always fair to protect other people from being killed.

From there, we are arguing whether states should be able to kill in cold blood, which is a different conversation, and my opinion is that we should keep making penalties for “financial crimes”, which usually kill more people than any mass shooter or serial killer could, harsher and harsher until there is a clearly visible deterrent effect.

The case of the lady in Vietnam is not even a direct “cold blood” case by the way, as the state agreed to spare her if she puts at least most of the money back, which means that lives lost because of the absence of that money might be spared. In my view, this is analogous to shooting at an active shooter, and an okay thing to do. Lives are being saved by doing this.

That is a very good argument, however these financial crimes are on the one hand much more trackable than direct violent crime and can affect more people.

My opinion is that we shouldn’t execute serial killers who kill dozens of people, because usually it’s hard to prove beyond doubt to the point such an irrevocable act can be taken and the process takes very long and is very expensive and is not that useful as a deterrent since these people are usually mentally ill in the first place.

But with the Boeing CEO whose actions caused several plane crashes, it’s pretty easy to prove since instructions had to come from somewhere and the buck stops at the top, it has deterrent value, just look at UnitedHealth, and the crime is much more severe than that of a serial killer, as most serial killers don’t kill multiple hundreds of people.

I would love to see counterarguments to this instead of just downvotes