321–330 of 585 posts
I think TikTok could easily make over $10000 a day from its Montana Audience. Although this law likely violates the 1st amendment, perhaps the best course of action is to either ignore Montana or just cut them a check.
per violation per day could probably be interpreted as per user
What VPNs should people in Montana and Utah use? Genuinely wondering the best option.
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2022/8/1/expanding-diskless-infr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you install that app on your personal phone? Even in some misplaced sense of rebellion, you're basically inviting spyware into your life.
Gonna back this up, from the security research I’ve read the app *uploads* over 2gb of data once installed over the course of one month, without any interaction at all from the user.
I wrote up a quick analysis last night here: https://ioc.exchange/@invisv/110387246627189198 Here are the takeaways: * It'd be easy for Apple and Google to prevent downloads of TikTok for most users, which would also include app updates, as they have a significant amount of knowledge of users' locations and could prevent most users in Montana -- even those using a VPN -- from downloading the app or updating it. * It'…
> side-loading of apps on Android 90%+ users are never going to use apks. If this ban kills the network effect (the R0 of the viral infection), then the last 10% aren't going to last long either.
As long as the overall platform is popular, it won't be surprising to see a lot of kids showing each other how to sideload.
Tomorrow's story: "Residents of Montana discover VPNs and how to use them!" Between Utah and Montana the awareness and use of VPNs is rising among the non-security-conscious, and this is a good thing.
So, I avoided VPNs for years because they had no practical benefit. I live in Utah, and I would consider myself very technically adept. Previously, I didn't like "VPNs" because now I'm just routing all my traffic through another untrusted 3rd party. It's like choosing between two evils, would I prefer my ISP knows where I go, or some rando that I also have to pay? Worse, the "rando" (usually) requires a VPN app which…
...but I still haven't bitten the bullet on a VPN yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, nope. States can't negotiate treaties on the US' behalf. Commerce and sanctions would fall under that as I understand it. States also can't regulate interstate trade, which I believe trying to penalize Apple and Google would constitute, since neither has a office in Montana.
Why can California require auto manufacturers to comply with their emissions standards if it is in effect regulating interstate trade?
I wrote up a quick analysis last night here: https://ioc.exchange/@invisv/110387246627189198 Here are the takeaways: * It'd be easy for Apple and Google to prevent downloads of TikTok for most users, which would also include app updates, as they have a significant amount of knowledge of users' locations and could prevent most users in Montana -- even those using a VPN -- from downloading the app or updating it. * It'…
I totally agree it doesn't do that and I want that, but at this point that is a major battle esp with how big tech have embedded themselves into govt.
This is a smaller battle won, and I hope it spreads. There's nothing bad about a multi-pronged approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe i am misunderstanding. Are you saying that a CCP controlled social media company is as bad to America as an Elon Musk controlled social media company?
different varieties/severity, neither good - arguably Musk is more directly harmful to Americans than Uyghur genocide, (which most Americans probably aren't even aware of) but it's not really an intelligent comparison and probably results in more distracting infighting than anything
My argument is that the regime that is carrying out the genocide is in control of the algorithms for a major social media company.
You perfectly prove my point when you have no problem realizing the impact on Americans control of a social media has in the case of Twitter, but are completely blind to the impact of TikTok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can California require auto manufacturers to comply with their emissions standards if it is in effect regulating interstate trade?
California doesn't require auto manufacturers to do anything. They require dealers and individuals to only buy cars that meet said emissions standards, on penalty of refusing to allow them to be registered to be driven on the state's roads.