221–230 of 761 posts
I wish targeted advertising was made completely illegal here, I am sure our society would greatly benefit from that.
Why would it benefit society to get less targeted ads as opposed to more targeted ones?
If I am Tylor Swift fan I should get her merch advertising only when I am visiting swifties forum or group - but not when I am checking my fishing forum where I expect fishing gear ads. But nowadays I get adsg
They have some valid gripes but then they get to: Or consider the recent charges the EU levied against X. Under Elon Musk’s ownership, anyone can now purchase a blue check with a paid subscription, whereas blue checks were previously reserved for notable figures. EU regulators singled out the new system for blue checks as a deceptive business practice that violates the bloc’s Digital Services Act. What are they think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but they have been trying desperately to stop all competition. Every large company in every industry wants to do this. > They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits?
> Every large company in every industry wants to do this. And the point of regulation is to stop it and bring balance. Or are you happy with mono-/oligopolies?
In practice, regulation almost never actually does that.
Every major industry is a monopoly or duopoly if you're even a bit generous with the term.
I'm just pointing out there is nothing unique here with tech or data.
And the politics are mostly theater that often makes things more monopolistic, not less.
Europe is a place to take social benefits; there is no tech, no innovation. It's better to sit on the couch and watch Netflix than start a business. There is too much risk, too many taxes, and too many regulations.
> no innovation So all innovation requires you to capture user's data for profit via advertisement or data brokerage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with the exaggeration in the parent comment, but your one counter-example pivoted their workforce expansion to the US after openly criticizing Sweden's business environment. They took issue with the shortage of employee housing due to over-regulated planning restrictions, unfavorable taxation of stock options, and a lack of programming and development education. Those issues (less so education) are appl…
Most devs in Sweden would be very happy to get US wages so this feels pretty much like bullshit. Also, Spotify could open offices in other places in Sweden (or Europe) if they want to be in places with lower CoL than Stockholm.
I don't think big-tech companies exiting is a bad thing. They're so used to getting their own way and making the rules that it's probably signal that Europe is on the right track.
In fact a huge chunk of American MSM is turning out to be unreliable and quick to deceive its readers who are still stuck in the "why would they lie to us".
Europe is doing a good job and as are more sovereign countries waking up to the techno-colonialism at play.
If Google or Facebook is in your country, they do not share your country's interest and instead pushing their own American ideologies.
More and more countries should reject American tech companies that seek to interfere and spread their fcked up ideologies in the host country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rent my rights via a contract to certain defined aspects of my autonomy for about forty hours per week. In exchange for that I get tokens that I can exchange for food. If I couldn't contract away those rights I'd get hungry. I'm also willing to rent my right to determine the contents of advertisements inserted into my daily news feed, for the right price. These things feel equivalent in kind to me.
What rights are you contracting away, exactly? Usually capitalist rhetoric refers to contracting as a right in itself, muddying your point significantly.
Could articles like this bemoaning Europe's state of regulation be opinion pieces? What if what Europe does is a good idea for the people but just inconvenient for companies? Europe is one of the power houses of the world but with low self-esteem I am afraid. In the long term what matters is the people's quality of life and diversity. Take China or the US: if a lot of people don't have purchasing power and leisure wh…
Thats exactly the issue. What's good for Europeans isn't so good for American corporations.
Already populist presidents in America have signaled they don't care about Europe so why should Europeans nurture and allow a hostile country continue to operate in their lands?
This type of outrage from American MSM is quite baffling. Whether their billionaires like it or not countries are going their own way and the biggest slap in the face is that those billionaires do not even live in America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens…
Specifically with AI I don’t want to experience the downside of innovation before we regulate because of how wide spread its use already is, and it’s problems have already become apparent. For example, it’s being used to job screen applicants even though we have proven that AI models still suffer from thing like racial bias. Companies don’t disclose how their models are trained to negate bias or anything like that ei…
I bet they also suffer from other biases that are harder to detect and maybe some biases we can't even imagine and thus control for.
They have some valid gripes but then they get to: Or consider the recent charges the EU levied against X. Under Elon Musk’s ownership, anyone can now purchase a blue check with a paid subscription, whereas blue checks were previously reserved for notable figures. EU regulators singled out the new system for blue checks as a deceptive business practice that violates the bloc’s Digital Services Act. What are they think…
Don't be naive. It was never a symbol of trust. At most it was a symbol of prominence or notability as decided by a biased, unaccountable group of Twitter employees. Many of the old blue check mark accounts routinely posted inaccurate information or outright lies. The new X Community Notes system is far superior for establishing trust. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/biden-clai... https://www.bloomb…
There are always going to be misinformation. It's crazy to think a company or any committee can determine these for us though. It's not even logical yet alone practical. then you need to determine whether said entity made any judgment errors in assessing a person or claim. Those who demand centralized 'truth' authorities are useful idiots for power seeking authoritarians.