On the other hand, if it's Trump who starts throttling your Netflix, can you actually elect a new President? Do you honestly think that THAT issue, among all the millions, is the one on which the country will be making its electoral decision?
Sigh. Government is layered. We have city councils and mayors that do look at issues like this. The issue is when you have a federal government that prevents localities, towns, cities, and states from making up their own minds.
The underappreciated value of NOT having the government take control of everything is that it gives more fine-grained control - different people make the decisions about different things.
What does that even mean? Each person will decide whether their Netflix gets throttled?
And no, you can't elect a new CEO of Comcast, but you can switch to a different service provider a lot more easily than you can switch to a different government.
Okay you aren't from around here (the USA). Most localities do not have competition in the ISP space, and where there are >1 player, they've agreed to not compete over specific neighborhoods.
Let me try to help. Say your neighbor starts running down the street yelling "Your wife is a whore!". Do you think:
1. Everyone should believe him, because he said it. Until you prove otherwise, she is a whore. 2. People should disregard him, or at least ask him provide evidence.
The choice is of course self evident to sane people.
People can play these "all assertions need evidence" games all day long. It benefits no one, particularly in the information age and when most citations are simply links to other people that have also made the same assertion with no citation themselves.
i'm confused what you are saying. Are you arguing we should believe nothing we read, or everything we read? Or should we flip a coin? In lieu of evidence we can trust or at least put some weight on, a coin flip is the best we can do.
Or do you think we should believe whatever supports our internal narrative about the world? Like, Twitter is a bunch of libtards trying to bring down Trump?
I don't mind if there is some evidence to back it up (like even a blog post showing how it was hard for someone to sign up)
Exactly. And Twitter denied it, other than admitting there was a problem with their autocomplete results which they said they had a fix on the way.
In a statement to CNBC, Twitter said it does not shadow ban users. "We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box, and shipping a change to address this," the company said.
Google is your first problem, enjoy your curated results.
Just so you know, you are the one that suggested I:
try your favorite search engine
Who in their right mind would have tried to use Google after that? But okay, so Google is tainted. Where should I search? Amazingly, you don't offer that info either. I guess that's another thing I need to research on my own right?
Why don't you just try your favorite search engine.
Nah, that's not how it works. If you are going to make assertions it's up to you to support them. It's not our job to research your ideas. If actually cared about educating or influencing people of course you'd do that.
But anyway, I did google it. And.... a bunch of generic articles about the first amendment.
I disagree completely with China's stance here but I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.
Can you fault Google for following the laws of the country they operate in?
Just a little perspective: the consequences of Google storing my search queries is targeted ads. The consequences of Apple letting the Chinese govt control their servers is imprisonment or death for Chinese citizens.
So if Apple gives in to Chinese government regulations in China they shouldn't fight for privacy rights elsewhere and this absolves Google and Facebook from their horrible privacy practices everywhere?
Google doesn't do business in China (for the most part). Apple does. Should Google trot out their CEO and have him start pointing the finger at Apple for doing business there?
So is there really a strategic advantage to saying "this law sucks, but I'm going to obey" vs "this law sucks, so I'm going to disobey", if there aren't any negative consequences for the latter? I think there isn't.
Why are you even going down this road? Of course there are consequences to breaking Chinese law. You get kicked out. No more business in China. Not to mention it hurts relations, and results in a more locked down China going forward.
The thing about Stamos is, he is wrong in one respect. Tim Cook is trying to influence opinions on privacy vs. security by speaking his mind.
I think you missed the point. Mr. Cook spouts off about user privacy, but happily hands over all Chinese user data to the Chinese govt. So privacy is good for US users, but not good for Chinese users. Too bad for them. https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
And the hypocrisy re: Google is that for the most part Google doesn't do business in China, and recently shut down a project that was aimed at providing a China-approved service. https://www.wired.com/story/co...
Don't get me wrong, I think both companies should do business in China. It's better for them to be there in business with caveats than to be locked out completely. That opens the door for them to be a force for change at some later date. But Mr. Cook should be a little more careful about what he says on his marketing parades.
the result of folks breaking into iCloud accounts of targeted celebrities then publishing selected contents of those accounts - not the result of data-mining on Apple's part.
So what. The data was still ended up where it was not intended. The reason the data was collected isn't much comfort to Jennifer Lawrence.
Maybe Mr. Cook should get up an speak about the evils of cloud computing. Oh wait, that'd hurt his business.
The Alex Jones example is paramount in silencing people just because we do not like their message.
Yes, that's exactly what happened. Why would you think that a social media company would be obliged to carry content that hurts their bottom line? When it comes to private companies, there's no free speech.
AJ hasn't been silenced. He is free to take his idea to any platform that'll have him, or to create his own platform (at his own expense).
If your going to create a social podium for people
Microsoft’s problem isn’t how often it updates Windows—it’s how it develops it
but this buried in the article:
Microsoft hasn't exactly revealed the development process being used with Windows 10
Explanation: barely tech literate clickbait writer for Ars Technica imagines they have a clue about how software development works at Microsoft. Argue all you want about the quality of windows, but don't try to pretend you have some understanding about software development and how it's gone wrong in Redmond.
Right, the idea that this is a viable method for producing drinking water has been largely debunked. This guy goes through all of the physics and economics pretty well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Right now my big complaint is that when my phone pairs/connects with my wife's car (Lincoln MKX, Base Sync), IHeartRadio starts and runs in the background on its own. No other time does IHR run on its own. And I cannot yet find out why.
Did you really just post in this thread about a problem you are having with bluetooth and the IHR app?
It's Google being crybabies, taking their ball and going home.
What Google is doing is simply introducing a new business structure since the EU ruled their current illegal.
The reality of course is that phones won't be made in the EU because they can no longer be competitive. That's okay with Google, because there's no point in doing business w/ EU companies if they can't make money.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if it's Trump who starts throttling your Netflix, can you actually elect a new President? Do you honestly think that THAT issue, among all the millions, is the one on which the country will be making its electoral decision?
Sigh. Government is layered. We have city councils and mayors that do look at issues like this. The issue is when you have a federal government that prevents localities, towns, cities, and states from making up their own minds.
The underappreciated value of NOT having the government take control of everything is that it gives more fine-grained control - different people make the decisions about different things.
What does that even mean? Each person will decide whether their Netflix gets throttled?
And no, you can't elect a new CEO of Comcast, but you can switch to a different service provider a lot more easily than you can switch to a different government.
Okay you aren't from around here (the USA). Most localities do not have competition in the ISP space, and where there are >1 player, they've agreed to not compete over specific neighborhoods.
I'm a fan of net neutrality but lets not for a second pretend you can trust government more than corporations,
If Comcast starts throttling my Netflix, can I elect a new CEO? I think we all see the point here.
With you personally? Probably not. With company employing you? Almost certainly.
Also, they might have a beef with the government that protects you. You know, the one that keeps them from driving a tank over your house?
There's something wrong with you.
Nothing wrong with him at all. He's paid by his Russian overlords to spew FUD on western websites. The man's gotta eat right?
Citation?
Let me try to help. Say your neighbor starts running down the street yelling "Your wife is a whore!". Do you think:
1. Everyone should believe him, because he said it. Until you prove otherwise, she is a whore.
2. People should disregard him, or at least ask him provide evidence.
The choice is of course self evident to sane people.
People can play these "all assertions need evidence" games all day long. It benefits no one, particularly in the information age and when most citations are simply links to other people that have also made the same assertion with no citation themselves.
i'm confused what you are saying. Are you arguing we should believe nothing we read, or everything we read? Or should we flip a coin? In lieu of evidence we can trust or at least put some weight on, a coin flip is the best we can do.
Or do you think we should believe whatever supports our internal narrative about the world? Like, Twitter is a bunch of libtards trying to bring down Trump?
I don't mind if there is some evidence to back it up (like even a blog post showing how it was hard for someone to sign up)
Exactly. And Twitter denied it, other than admitting there was a problem with their autocomplete results which they said they had a fix on the way.
In a statement to CNBC, Twitter said it does not shadow ban users. "We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box, and shipping a change to address this," the company said.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
So not only did they deny shadow banning R's, they denied doing it at all.
Google is your first problem, enjoy your curated results.
Just so you know, you are the one that suggested I:
try your favorite search engine
Who in their right mind would have tried to use Google after that? But okay, so Google is tainted. Where should I search? Amazingly, you don't offer that info either. I guess that's another thing I need to research on my own right?
This is fun. Where do we go next?
Why don't you just try your favorite search engine.
Nah, that's not how it works. If you are going to make assertions it's up to you to support them. It's not our job to research your ideas. If actually cared about educating or influencing people of course you'd do that.
But anyway, I did google it. And.... a bunch of generic articles about the first amendment.
There's been a whole assload of cases on this whereby a company presents itself as a public square, 1st amendment rules apply.
Sounds interesting. Can you link some references? Make sure and include an "assload" of them.
Twitter never really suggested it had no bias, it's always been fundamentally far left in leaning.
Post your references, AC troll. It's not the responsibility of decent people to prove your retarded statements false.
I disagree completely with China's stance here but I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.
Can you fault Google for following the laws of the country they operate in?
Just a little perspective: the consequences of Google storing my search queries is targeted ads. The consequences of Apple letting the Chinese govt control their servers is imprisonment or death for Chinese citizens.
So if Apple gives in to Chinese government regulations in China they shouldn't fight for privacy rights elsewhere and this absolves Google and Facebook from their horrible privacy practices everywhere?
Google doesn't do business in China (for the most part). Apple does. Should Google trot out their CEO and have him start pointing the finger at Apple for doing business there?
So is there really a strategic advantage to saying "this law sucks, but I'm going to obey" vs "this law sucks, so I'm going to disobey", if there aren't any negative consequences for the latter? I think there isn't.
Why are you even going down this road? Of course there are consequences to breaking Chinese law. You get kicked out. No more business in China. Not to mention it hurts relations, and results in a more locked down China going forward.
It's not American businesses job to refute totalitarian regimes.
That's true, unless the president has a conspiracy theory that the business is plotting against him:
https://www.wired.com/story/co...
The thing about Stamos is, he is wrong in one respect. Tim Cook is trying to influence opinions on privacy vs. security by speaking his mind.
I think you missed the point. Mr. Cook spouts off about user privacy, but happily hands over all Chinese user data to the Chinese govt. So privacy is good for US users, but not good for Chinese users. Too bad for them.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
And the hypocrisy re: Google is that for the most part Google doesn't do business in China, and recently shut down a project that was aimed at providing a China-approved service.
https://www.wired.com/story/co...
Don't get me wrong, I think both companies should do business in China. It's better for them to be there in business with caveats than to be locked out completely. That opens the door for them to be a force for change at some later date. But Mr. Cook should be a little more careful about what he says on his marketing parades.
the result of folks breaking into iCloud accounts of targeted celebrities then publishing selected contents of those accounts - not the result of data-mining on Apple's part.
So what. The data was still ended up where it was not intended. The reason the data was collected isn't much comfort to Jennifer Lawrence.
Maybe Mr. Cook should get up an speak about the evils of cloud computing. Oh wait, that'd hurt his business.
has no inherent need to mine data
Insomuch as public companies have stock holders, this is incorrect.
The Alex Jones example is paramount in silencing people just because we do not like their message.
Yes, that's exactly what happened. Why would you think that a social media company would be obliged to carry content that hurts their bottom line? When it comes to private companies, there's no free speech.
AJ hasn't been silenced. He is free to take his idea to any platform that'll have him, or to create his own platform (at his own expense).
If your going to create a social podium for people
The podium is for advertisers, not the people.
My phone is dying and was already looking at Moto as the replacement, very favorably. This seals it. I am buying X4.
I bought a Moto G5 plus for my son last year and am pretty happy with it. They make the best budget phones.
People need to reward Moto w/ sales. If all that comes of this is existing customers wait longer before getting a new phone it's a fail.
I doubt there will be that many takers
Good, all the sooner we can get back to whining there are no user serviceable phones.
Wait, we have this clickbait title:
Microsoft’s problem isn’t how often it updates Windows—it’s how it develops it
but this buried in the article:
Microsoft hasn't exactly revealed the development process being used with Windows 10
Explanation: barely tech literate clickbait writer for Ars Technica imagines they have a clue about how software development works at Microsoft. Argue all you want about the quality of windows, but don't try to pretend you have some understanding about software development and how it's gone wrong in Redmond.
It's called a dehumidifier.
Right, the idea that this is a viable method for producing drinking water has been largely debunked. This guy goes through all of the physics and economics pretty well...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Right now my big complaint is that when my phone pairs/connects with my wife's car (Lincoln MKX, Base Sync), IHeartRadio starts and runs in the background on its own. No other time does IHR run on its own. And I cannot yet find out why.
Did you really just post in this thread about a problem you are having with bluetooth and the IHR app?
Yes Samsung has had it's own app store ever since they released their first phone. What's it called now?
It's Google being crybabies, taking their ball and going home.
What Google is doing is simply introducing a new business structure since the EU ruled their current illegal.
The reality of course is that phones won't be made in the EU because they can no longer be competitive. That's okay with Google, because there's no point in doing business w/ EU companies if they can't make money.