Well there’s also the thought “well I was already on Facebook from the beginning so they already have my data anyways, whereas TikTok is a completely new entity that would be collecting massive amounts of new information” It’s like going from 90 to 100(Facebook) versus 0 to 100 (TikTok).
Also Facebook didn’t start off being advertiser focused which is like a frog in slowly boiling water situation, but with TikTok the water started off boiling.
They might not produce anything, but on the flip side they also are the only ones on that list that have to be prepared to increase data storage by hundreds of hours per minute! And that doesn’t include multiple copies for different quality etc.
Honestly YouTube is probably one of the few companies that deserves to be able to raise their prices unless they start deleting old content en masse so they don’t have to infinitely scale.
That being said, I wouldn’t pay $14. It’s just taking advantage of matching all the other streaming services raising their prices, something being done purely out of greed in the name of profits. Everything is overpriced now, I hate this.
Well API access gives them more detailed information about people’s actions (such as their upvotes and downvotes) than merely scraping does. From an advertising perspective that’s quite valuable
They could get even more info by federating than by scraping. However, there’s nothing to stop them from spinning up a server that they don’t publicly talk about and using that to get that same info.
My assumption is that each user would be an Object in ActivityPub and then you would follow that user (subscribe in Lemmy terms). If that’s the case, then that user would appear to be a community in your feed.
I’d like to see how Threads evolves before preemptively deciding to cease interacting with it. However, if it’s anything like Facebook or Instagram today then please keep it away from me
In theory, yes it’s impossible. You may have laws and licensing but it may be difficult to prove anything. However, there may also be technical things you can do to prevent certain usage. For example, an attack called GLAZE (https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/) can make image styles harder to mimic for many common text-to-image models. Nothing is foolproof though and new models can make this obsolete
A couple executive-types gathered the more senior developers for an “open” discussion about recruitment and retention. They suggest multiple ideas that would destroy morale (like non-compete clauses, poorly designed work-role pipelines, etc), and all of us suggest against them, and provided alternatives instead (like a shift in direction of certain efforts, more autonomy and less micromanaging, etc). They end up accusing us of not supporting our company’s mission and tell us that if we don’t agree then they don’t want us there and we should just quit. I think after that meeting, only 2 people stayed out of about 30, and hiring numbers have significantly declined.
For the most part, I 90% agree with your stance. However, you can’t take the statement “I have nothing to hide” literally to the extremes. That would be suggesting that the person is okay giving you the passwords for their bank accounts under the guide that they have nothing to hide.
It’s a common colloquial expression which expresses how one accepts the situation as is. I’ve got nothing to hide doesn’t mean that I then consent to a strip search or house search, those are uncomfortable and inconvenient. You can’t always apply the same single justification to support multiple separate events, because you need the full context. Imagine “can I borrow a dollar? sure thing, you’re my friend” Well whoops, you’ve now just given your friend complete reign over all your money for as long as the friend title exists
A more accurate interpretation here is “They’re not collecting any information that I’m embarrassed about”
Sorry, language is messy and oftentimes there are differences between literal and intended meaning. I just wanted to point out why it is indeed, an unfair comparison. You can achieve your point without attacking someone’s (as I argue) correct statement when taken in context, since your underlying point still stands that the majority of people have some limit of sharing information that they would not be comfortable with.