CEO Steve Huffman whether posts containing racism or racial slurs violate Reddit's terms. Huffman revealed that said speech are permissible on the site. ....
It's unclear if Huffman's comments are representative of Reddit's company policy, but protection of hate speech can -- and do -- lead to online harassment and cyberbullying.
The CEO's comments are addressing racism and racial slurs.
Which is NOT the same thing as hate speech. Somebody is confusing the two, and they are NOT the same.
It's not hate speech when a poster merely expresses that they hold some racist belief(s), or uses some racial slur or insult, or says ugly ignorant things about other people based on race, etc. Hate speech is something very specific: Inciting violence or attempting to cause or incite others to cause physical harm or damage to a person or person(s).
based on their race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, age, gender, religion or religious beliefs, veteran status, genetic information, disability or physical conditions..
Reddit's policy update made it clear that hate speech is not tolerated.
Yes..... But in the Slashdot summary Zuck seemed to be conflating "Shadow profiles of Non-Users" with "History of pages viewed by IP addresses visiting Facebook.com without logging in"
Implying that the "Shadow profile" was required for a security purpose is deliberately deceptive (IMO).... If you visit Facebook.com you're an "Anonymous Facebook user"
Whereas a "Shadow Profile" is not IP addresses/"knowledge when someone is repeatedly trying to access our services." BUT Shadow profiles are Personal Information collected through 3rd party sources about real persons who have never created an account or personally provided the information directly on Facebook.com.
Only Lawbreaking technically-advanced asshats ought to be capable of causing trouble. They may be using cleartext control, but the radio frequencies almost certainly require a license to legally transmit on.
So I am surprised that "facilitating prostitution" is a federal crime
This is like "facilitating sex" or "facilitating an abortion".... it should be Unconstitutional for the same basic reason that Roe v. Wade. Rejects criminalization of abortions. Prostitution between consenting adults is as private a matter as sex which the state has no compelling interest in restricting; similar to the way in which they cannot restrict sexual acts based on biological gender.
COPPA requires platforms "give parents notice of its data collection practices, and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting the data."
Naw it doesn't. COPPA only regulates collection, use, and/or disclosure of the personal information from and about children on the Internet. So collecting data that isn't the child's own personal info is not subject to COPPA or the FTC... Behavioral ad targetting may say things like "Your device/browser session 48592589239520 has recently visited Webpage14262362,Webpage211,Video30048960007,Video49623400057, and Video265352978917, therefore... we predict Advert123467 might be a good one to show. And that's NOT based on collecting any personal information."
"It's just fundamentally unfair," Josh Golin, executive director of the CCFC, told Gizmodo, "to use Google's powerful behavioral targeting on a child that doesn't yet understand what's going on."
I don't think even the average adult, including probably Josh Golin understand What's REALLY going on. Only Google knows exactly how they're targeting ads. There's no "fairness" deserved or necessary here --- they'll simply observe viewing patterns and use it to show the most effective ads.
While there are other child-in-the-pool alarms, most of them are wave-activated and have to be shut off when other people are using the pool.
This is better.... the kid doesn't have to wear a special watch that could accidentally be lost, OR the kid could take it off, or the parent forgets to attach it, OR there are not enough watches available for the number of kids.
My suggestion:
(1) Use the simple wave-activated alarm devices
(2) Put a good fence around your pool with gated access and latches on outside the gates above reach of young children. No unattended children have access to the fenced-in area. They can play outside the fence
(3) Cover the pool area itself with motion detectors and a monitored intrusion alarm
(4) Keep locked with code required to open the gate from outside while nobody is using the pool.
(5) OK... fine the new wristwatch-based alarm toy might be suitable for children while attended with multiple adults present: to draw quick attention to the problem in case an accident occurs.
"substantial improvement" in patients with serious or life-threatening diseases compared to treatments already on the market.
Reports of deaths by those on the drug does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.
Their condition is life-threatening, therefore, you administer the drug. If the drug doesn't work then possibly they die. If the drug kills them, then they die.
So how to make sure they responsibly analyze the report and find the reason for complications was caused by the drug, and/or the drug is unreasonably risky or unsafe compared to attempting to live with the condition it treats without the drug?
I've had interviews where they want code written on the whiteboard
The purpose of taking computer science is not to learn to write code; nor is it to pass an interview --- coding is a trade skill that is barely germane to CS, other than computer scientists need implementation languages to express their ideas And may analyze code and may use CS concepts to design and build compilers and systems that parse or optimize code, and there are other training routes to learn coding itself (which are shorter courses and a different path of study from computer science).
People won't generally write code on a whiteboard. But there are MANY weird things people can be asked to answer or do at a job interview which are totally outside the realm of what a CS degree will prepare them for.
Avoid all technology problems. My computer crashed. My battery's dead. I accidentally deleted the file. I have the wrong version
Computer based testing is typically administered using special software or a HTML5 web-based app. High school students are taking ALL their tests in ALL subjects using computer-based testing these days..... I think Universities could easily be doing the same, and No.... the student shouldn't need an IDE on the test. Nor should they be expected to be writing fully functional programs on a CS test.... the purpose of the test is to show they have learned the CS material and mathematics knowledge deemed relevant or necessary to the course.
you canâ(TM)t use your shit-ass JBeans Pro 2000 IDE on a whiteboard, stupid.
The whiteboard is a tool. Not everyone "REAL" CS person uses it. Whiteboarded code has no formal syntax, so it's not like coding --- parentheses are only written if they are pertinent logically If/End If may be omitted or replaced with a shorthand. Brackets/semicolons are almost certainly not present.
The whiteboarder May not have an IDE available, but
in exchange will use whatever conventions they are most comfortable with.... for example, they aren't bound to the rules or notations of C or C++ or Python, Etc.
Quicksort is what happens to arrange the elements of 'base' when you invoke the qsort function from the Standard C library with the proper size and a comparison function -- in order by the comparison function.
qsort(void*base, size_t nmemb, size_t size, int (*compar)(const void*,const void*));
What is left join
Left join is the arrangement of SQL output you get when you invoke SELECT * from table1 LEFT JOIN table2 ON ( table1.attribute1 = table2.attribute2 ) .
With Facebook talking to hospitals directly, isn't there a bit of a concern as to HOW they collect data on people without their knowledge, let alone consent?
If the project had gotten off the ground; it's possible the project could have collected data from both Facebook and the Hospitals, but Facebook itself wouldn't have been able to collect health data on people from the hospitals or the combined dossier to use for their own purposes, because of compliance issues.
Of course the project never actually got off the ground, and accuracy or privacy concerns could've been some of the things that had prevented the idea moving forward.
Facebook should just admit that the execs of the company have that and more powers and the ability to exercise more actions than mere mortals when it comes to messaging tools and access to data on the website, because clearly they do.
Unfortunately they don't yet have control of users' e-mail accounts, so they can't yet delete receipts or E-mail based proofs, although they might in the future tweak the feature that sends messages to E-mail accounts to prevent it from being used to prove a message was sent.
just announced that it will give all users an option to unsend messages.
That's bullshit. Once you send a message and someone's read it; what to do with the copy of the message within their Inbox should be their decision.
I could think of dozens of different scenarios where I would want to keep a message against the sender's desires, such as evidence of wrongdoing, OR evidence to protect me (E.g. Proof they directed me to do X), and they should have no say in that.
Plus it doesn't matter what the company does.. The second PHI is passed to it, they fall under the HIPAA umbrella.
The information is not PHI if it came from a source that is not a covered entity.
HIPAA does not magically apply to any organization which has something that looks like Health Info; there are specific organizations it applies to, and Facebook isn't any of those.
Except that Facebook would quickly become a covered entity if they did this. They would be awfully close to a 'Health Care Clearinghouse'
They would not be a clearinghouse. Clearinghouses perform processing of information on behalf of other organizations. This means that they receive health data from a covered entity such as a healthcare provider, process the information On behalf of the other entities, and return it.
Even if they got a pass on that, they would certainly be a 'business associate' which are generally bound by HIPAA rules.
First of all... Facebook would probably have the research project's legal organization created under a 3rd party organization separate from Facebook that has a data sharing agreement with FB and other agreements with Hospitals; which would explain potential reasons for "hashing", "anonymization", and "matching", so FB isn't directly sharing information with hospitals.
Second: You are not a business associate unless your organization signs a BAA, and i'm pretty sure there's no way Facebook would sign a BAA on their users.
You're only required to sign a BAA contract if your entity processes or receives information on behalf of the other entity in a manner that involves you receiving or having access to receive protected health information from that entity.
If you're a data broker or you're in possession of unprotected information, such as personal health data or other personal info a user allowed you to collect under a ToS or different rules ---- you don't need a BAA to provide a service where there's a one-way data flow, and you provide a covered entity access to the unprotected information in your possession but don't gain access to any PHI.
In that case you are not working on behalf of or gaining access to the PHI which is under the care and protection of the covered entity.
A “business associate” is a person or entity, other than a member of the workforce of a covered entity, who performs functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve access by the business associate to protected health information.
The HIPAA Rules generally require that covered entities and business associates enter into contracts with their business associates to ensure that the business associates will appropriately safeguard protected health information.
The business associate contract also serves to clarify and limit, as appropriate, the permissible uses and disclosures of protected health information by the business associate, based on the relationship between the parties and the activities or services being performed by the business associate. A business associate may use or disclose protected health information only as permitted or required by its business associate contract or as required by law.
Indeed, HIPAA will do nothing to protect your privacy in these situations.
HIPAA prevents your Medical Provider, Insurance company, or other covered entity from RELEASING or DISTRIBUTING your medical records/Protected Health Information. It does NOTHING to restrain them from GATHERING or IMPORTING records/data about you from other sources such as Facebook.
Facebook is not a covered entity under HIPAA, because they aren't any kind of medical provider ---- so they aren't regulated in any way by HIPAA; therefore if you post something related to your own health there on your own Facebook page: they can share it however they want according to the Terms of Use that users agree to when using Facebook's website. There's nothing that would prevent Facebook from distributing your information to a
Hospital.
The White House could also turn the email servers off and lock them in the closet
That step is not an equivalent, And nope... turning off their servers would not stop 3rd party's mail servers spoofing their domains From: addresses.
DMARC and DKIM are disaster areas which break common email scenarios like mailing lists.
Most major mailing list software handle it just fine when posters' domain has implemented DMARC --- either change the From: address or preserve the headers so DKIM signature continues to match after forwarding. The scenario you describe is not "common" anymore; in fact, it's so uncommon, that many major mail providers have chosen to ignore it and implement DMARC strict enforcement with required DKIM upon their domains regardless.
Some legacy mailing list managers -- when used for discussion lists have issues with, But such mailing lists are an exceedingly rare site these days; social media sites such as Facebook/Twitter, and Web-based forums have all but completely replaced the concept of an E-mail based discussion list, so they've really gone the way of Usenet.
Also, enough of the SMTP servers on the internet support preemptiveTLS that some webmail providers are starting to provide visual security warnings to end users or refuse to deliver mail to servers that won't accept TLS connections.
No, that's not true. Limited liability. You can sue for anything you like, but the owners of a limited liability corporation are not going to lose a lawsuit.
That all depends. Limited liability is not zero liability: the shareholders of a company that is sued might be required to pay back dividends or other payment they received of the company's profits to cover liability: particularly if it becomes deemed transfer in conjunction with fraudulent actions or a crime.
There are situations where the courts can pierce the corporate veil and hold the parent company or investors responsible in excess of their investment; for example, especially, if the parent company was intermingling assets of their multiple subsidiaries, or if the parent or operating companies were significantly undercapitalized with major assets being transferred to the parent or vice-versa (eg a corporate structure that is an alter-ego of one or more of its owners organized only to act
as a 'shield').
Because I'm the user, and I have power over which browser I use.
That you do. Just like you could switch to a vehicle brand that doesn't enforce Emergency Braking Assist or Antilock; well, for a time, anyways, and with negative consequences.
Although it is likely for the viable alternatives you speak of to follow Chrome's lead and answer their malware scan feature with a similar competitive feature of their own.
But users are not going to avoid Chrome just b/c it scans for malware. In fact, this may encourage more users to switch from other alternatives because Chrome has the better security record.
but all parties have to agree on the method of verification
That's why we have standards, and the applicable standard is called DMARC, which involves implementing a SPF policy in the DNS zone, DKIM message signing, and a DKIM policy in the DNS zone, and signing the DNS zone using DNSSEC.
If you WANT European-style privacy protections You have to Move to Europe, OR get your US legislators to pass similar laws.
And US legislative hearings are just a charade for your politicians to make you think they care.
There's no right to just grill Facebook and get them to do whatever you want them to do in respect to your privacy. They're only going to protect your information and give you privacy rights in the way that LAWS require them to AND prevent them from casting away by written agreements.
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
True, but maybe you and she are in different live situations. I mean.... you're not a small channel owner whose livelihood depends on money from Youtube, who suddenly experience an unexplained loss of views and revenue due to Youtube's arbitrary and capricious algorithms.
Perhaps she already had some sort of paranoid personality issues, and when she realized, she wasn't going to have a way of making ends meet, she was driven to insane and self-destructive behaviors, including the shooting.
Slashdot Mirror
The CEO's comments are addressing racism and racial slurs.
Which is NOT the same thing as hate speech.
Somebody is confusing the two, and they are NOT the same.
It's not hate speech when a poster merely expresses that they hold some racist belief(s), or uses
some racial slur or insult, or says ugly ignorant things about other people based on race, etc.
Hate speech is something very specific: Inciting violence or attempting to cause or incite others to cause physical harm or damage to a person or person(s).
based on their race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, age, gender, religion or religious beliefs, veteran status, genetic information, disability or physical conditions..
Reddit's policy update made it clear that hate speech is not tolerated.
Yes..... But in the Slashdot summary Zuck seemed to be conflating "Shadow profiles of Non-Users" with
"History of pages viewed by IP addresses visiting Facebook.com without logging in"
Implying that the "Shadow profile" was required for a security purpose is deliberately deceptive (IMO).... If you visit Facebook.com you're an "Anonymous Facebook user"
Whereas a "Shadow Profile" is not IP addresses/"knowledge when someone is repeatedly trying to access our services."
BUT Shadow profiles are Personal Information collected through 3rd party sources about real persons who have never created an account or personally provided the information directly on Facebook.com.
Only Lawbreaking technically-advanced asshats ought to be capable of causing trouble. They may be using cleartext control, but the radio frequencies almost certainly require a license to legally transmit on.
So I am surprised that "facilitating prostitution" is a federal crime
This is like "facilitating sex" or "facilitating an abortion".... it should be Unconstitutional for the same basic reason that Roe v. Wade. Rejects criminalization of abortions. Prostitution between consenting adults is as private a matter as sex which the state has no compelling interest in restricting; similar to the way in which they cannot restrict sexual acts based on biological gender.
COPPA requires platforms "give parents notice of its data collection practices, and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting the data."
Naw it doesn't. COPPA only regulates collection, use, and/or disclosure of the personal information from and about children on the Internet.
So collecting data that isn't the child's own personal info is not subject to COPPA or the FTC... Behavioral ad targetting may say things like "Your device/browser session 48592589239520 has recently visited Webpage14262362,Webpage211,Video30048960007,Video49623400057, and Video265352978917, therefore... we predict Advert123467 might be a good one to show. And that's NOT based on collecting any personal information."
"It's just fundamentally unfair," Josh Golin, executive director of the CCFC, told Gizmodo, "to use Google's powerful behavioral targeting on a child that doesn't yet understand what's going on."
I don't think even the average adult, including probably Josh Golin understand What's REALLY going on. Only Google knows exactly how they're targeting ads. There's no "fairness" deserved or necessary here --- they'll simply observe viewing patterns and use it to show the most effective ads.
While there are other child-in-the-pool alarms, most of them are wave-activated and have to be shut off when other people are using the pool.
This is better.... the kid doesn't have to wear a special watch that could accidentally be lost, OR the kid could take it off, or the parent forgets to attach it, OR there are not enough watches available for the number of kids.
My suggestion:
(1) Use the simple wave-activated alarm devices
(2) Put a good fence around your pool with gated access and latches on outside the gates above reach of young children. No unattended children have access to the fenced-in area. They can play outside the fence
(3) Cover the pool area itself with motion detectors and a monitored intrusion alarm
(4) Keep locked with code required to open the gate from outside while nobody is using the pool.
(5) OK... fine the new wristwatch-based alarm toy might be suitable for children while attended with multiple adults present: to draw quick attention to the problem in case an accident occurs.
"substantial improvement" in patients with serious or life-threatening diseases compared to treatments already on the market.
Reports of deaths by those on the drug does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.
Their condition is life-threatening, therefore, you administer the drug. If the drug doesn't work then possibly they die. If the drug kills them, then they die.
So how to make sure they responsibly analyze the report and find the reason for complications was caused by the drug, and/or the drug is unreasonably risky or unsafe compared to attempting to live with the condition it treats without the drug?
What if it was "Justin Bieber song " or "Taylor Swift song?"
I've had interviews where they want code written on the whiteboard
The purpose of taking computer science is not to learn to write code; nor is it to pass an interview --- coding is a trade skill that is barely germane to CS, other than computer scientists need implementation languages to express their ideas And may analyze code and may use CS concepts to design and build compilers and systems that parse or optimize code, and there are other training routes to learn coding itself (which are shorter courses and a different path of study from computer science).
People won't generally write code on a whiteboard.
But there are MANY weird things people can be asked to answer or do at a job interview which are totally outside the realm of what a CS degree will prepare them for.
Avoid all technology problems. My computer crashed. My battery's dead. I accidentally deleted the file. I have the wrong version
Computer based testing is typically administered using special software or a HTML5 web-based app. High school students are taking ALL their tests in ALL subjects using computer-based testing these days..... I think Universities could easily be doing the same, and No.... the student shouldn't need an IDE on the test. Nor should they be expected to be writing fully functional programs on a CS test.... the purpose of the test is to show they have learned the CS material and mathematics knowledge deemed relevant or necessary to the course.
you canâ(TM)t use your shit-ass JBeans Pro 2000 IDE on a whiteboard, stupid.
The whiteboard is a tool. Not everyone "REAL" CS person uses it. Whiteboarded code has no formal syntax, so it's not like coding --- parentheses are only written if they are pertinent logically If/End If may be omitted or replaced with a shorthand. Brackets/semicolons are almost certainly not present.
The whiteboarder May not have an IDE available, but
in exchange will use whatever conventions they are most comfortable with.... for example, they aren't bound to the rules or notations of C or C++ or Python, Etc.
Quicksort is what happens to arrange the elements of 'base' when you invoke the qsort function from the Standard C library with the proper size and a comparison function -- in order by the comparison function.
qsort(void*base, size_t nmemb, size_t size, int (*compar)(const void*,const void*));
What is left join
Left join is the arrangement of SQL output you get when you invoke SELECT * from table1 LEFT JOIN table2 ON ( table1.attribute1 = table2.attribute2 ) .
Cellmate 2: I ran youtube-dl to download the latest Britney Spears song
and shared it with my friends.
With Facebook talking to hospitals directly, isn't there a bit of a concern as to HOW they collect data on people without their knowledge, let alone consent?
If the project had gotten off the ground; it's possible the project could have collected data from both Facebook and the Hospitals, but
Facebook itself wouldn't have been able to collect health data on people from the hospitals or the combined dossier to use for their own purposes, because of compliance issues.
Of course the project never actually got off the ground, and accuracy or privacy concerns could've been some of the things that had prevented the idea moving forward.
Facebook should just admit that the execs of the company have that and more powers and the
ability to exercise more actions than mere mortals when it comes to messaging tools and access
to data on the website, because clearly they do.
Unfortunately they don't yet have control of users' e-mail accounts, so they can't yet delete receipts or E-mail based proofs,
although they might in the future tweak the feature that sends messages to E-mail accounts to prevent it from being used to
prove a message was sent.
just announced that it will give all users an option to unsend messages.
That's bullshit. Once you send a message and someone's read it;
what to do with the copy of the message within their Inbox should be their decision.
I could think of dozens of different scenarios where I would want to keep a message against the sender's
desires, such as evidence of wrongdoing, OR evidence to protect me (E.g. Proof they directed me to do X), and they should have no say in that.
Plus it doesn't matter what the company does.. The second PHI is passed to it, they fall under the HIPAA umbrella.
The information is not PHI if it came from a source that is not a covered entity.
HIPAA does not magically apply to any organization which has something that looks like Health Info; there are specific organizations it applies to, and Facebook isn't any of those.
Except that Facebook would quickly become a covered entity if they did this. They would be awfully close to a 'Health Care Clearinghouse'
They would not be a clearinghouse. Clearinghouses perform processing of information on behalf of other organizations. This means that they receive health data from a covered entity such as a healthcare provider, process the information On behalf of the other entities, and return it.
Even if they got a pass on that, they would certainly be a 'business associate' which are generally bound by HIPAA rules.
First of all... Facebook would probably have the research project's legal organization created under a 3rd party organization separate from Facebook that has a data sharing agreement with FB and other agreements with Hospitals; which would explain potential reasons for "hashing", "anonymization", and "matching", so FB isn't directly sharing information with hospitals.
Second: You are not a business associate unless your organization signs a BAA, and i'm pretty sure there's no way Facebook would sign a BAA on their users.
You're only required to sign a BAA contract if your entity processes or receives information on behalf of the other entity in a manner that involves you receiving or having access to receive protected health information from that entity.
If you're a data broker or you're in possession of unprotected information, such as personal health data or other personal info a user allowed you to collect under a ToS or different rules ---- you don't need a BAA to provide a service where there's a one-way data flow, and you provide a covered entity access to the unprotected information in your possession but don't gain access to any PHI.
In that case you are not working on behalf of or gaining access to the PHI which is under the care and protection of the covered entity.
Indeed, HIPAA will do nothing to protect your privacy in these situations.
HIPAA prevents your Medical Provider, Insurance company, or other covered entity from RELEASING or DISTRIBUTING your medical records/Protected Health Information. It does NOTHING to restrain them from GATHERING or IMPORTING records/data about you from other sources such as Facebook.
Facebook is not a covered entity under HIPAA, because they aren't any kind of medical provider ---- so they aren't regulated in any way by HIPAA; therefore if you post something related to your own health there on your own Facebook page: they can share it however they want according to the Terms of Use that users agree to when using Facebook's website. There's nothing that would prevent Facebook from distributing your information to a
Hospital.
The White House could also turn the email servers off and lock them in the closet
That step is not an equivalent, And nope... turning off their servers would not stop 3rd party's mail servers spoofing their domains From: addresses.
DMARC and DKIM are disaster areas which break common email scenarios like mailing lists.
Most major mailing list software handle it just fine when posters' domain has implemented DMARC --- either change the From: address or preserve the headers so DKIM signature continues to match after forwarding.
The scenario you describe is not "common" anymore; in fact, it's so uncommon, that many major mail providers have
chosen to ignore it and implement DMARC strict enforcement with required DKIM upon their domains regardless.
Some legacy mailing list managers -- when used for discussion lists have issues with, But such mailing lists are
an exceedingly rare site these days; social media sites such as Facebook/Twitter, and Web-based forums have
all but completely replaced the concept of an E-mail based discussion list, so they've really gone the way of Usenet.
Also, enough of the SMTP servers on the internet support preemptiveTLS that some webmail providers are starting to provide visual security warnings to end users or refuse to deliver mail to servers that won't accept TLS connections.
No, that's not true. Limited liability. You can sue for anything you like, but the owners of a limited liability corporation are not going to lose a lawsuit.
That all depends. Limited liability is not zero liability: the shareholders of a company that is sued might be required to pay back dividends or other payment they received of the company's profits to cover liability: particularly if it becomes deemed transfer in conjunction with fraudulent actions or a crime.
There are situations where the courts can pierce the corporate veil and hold the parent company or investors responsible in excess of their investment; for example, especially, if the parent company was intermingling assets of their multiple subsidiaries, or if the parent or operating companies were significantly undercapitalized with major assets being transferred to the parent or vice-versa (eg a corporate structure that is an alter-ego of one or more of its owners organized only to act
as a 'shield').
Because I'm the user, and I have power over which browser I use.
That you do. Just like you could switch to a vehicle brand that doesn't enforce Emergency Braking Assist or Antilock; well, for a time, anyways, and with negative consequences.
Although it is likely for the viable alternatives you speak of to follow Chrome's lead and answer their malware scan
feature with a similar competitive feature of their own.
But users are not going to avoid Chrome just b/c it scans for malware.
In fact, this may encourage more users to switch from other alternatives because Chrome has the better security record.
but all parties have to agree on the method of verification
That's why we have standards, and the applicable standard is called DMARC, which involves implementing a SPF policy in the DNS zone, DKIM message signing, and a DKIM policy in the DNS zone, and signing the DNS zone using DNSSEC.
If you WANT European-style privacy protections You have to Move to Europe, OR get your US legislators to pass similar laws.
And US legislative hearings are just a charade for your politicians to make you think they care.
There's no right to just grill Facebook and get them to do whatever you want them to do in respect to your privacy. They're only going to protect your information and give you privacy rights in the way that LAWS require them to AND prevent them from casting away by written agreements.
The Constitution provides the US government the right to Coin the money, so through legislative action, they could in fact print more money.
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
True, but maybe you and she are in different live situations.
I mean.... you're not a small channel owner whose livelihood depends on money from Youtube, who suddenly experience an unexplained loss of views and revenue due to Youtube's arbitrary and capricious algorithms.
Perhaps she already had some sort of paranoid personality issues, and when she realized, she wasn't going to have a way of making ends meet, she was driven to insane and self-destructive behaviors, including the shooting.