351–360 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s never “we care for your privacy” but rather “we value your privacy”, which is easy to read as “we assign a value to your privacy”. In that light, the messaging becomes clearer.
This. Companies cannot feel emotions.
Elon Musk's emotions certainly dictate a lot of his companies' behavior.
Companies aren't emotionless if they are essentially an extension of an individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easier to put things online wrt technical barrier of entry and cost, but it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Got a popular page on Facebook? pay for it to be seen. Got a great unique website? Pay to be seen via Adwords. Website owners don't link so liberally as they once did because the link graph has been obliterated by "what people think will please Google" rather than linking to things they think other…
> it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Here's something I've always wondered: I don't really get this obsession with maximizing the number of people who go to one's web page. If you're just a regular person who's not profiting from ads or something, it shouldn't matter. If I post something to the internet, I maybe send it to a few people who might want to see it and that's it. I don't care about collecting pagev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's a lot harder for things to get seen. Here's something I've always wondered: I don't really get this obsession with maximizing the number of people who go to one's web page. If you're just a regular person who's not profiting from ads or something, it shouldn't matter. If I post something to the internet, I maybe send it to a few people who might want to see it and that's it. I don't care about collecting pagev…
Almost anyone who publishes something wants people to read it. The ones who don’t care how many people read their ideas don’t publish — they keep it to themselves or just discuss it with friends.
Today we view that number as approximately zero. But that's past Dunbar's number. That's more people than I will have any kind of meaningful relationship with simultaneously. Most people would get a little nervous standing up in front of 200 people and saying anything.
Our sense of scale has been mutated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are people being exploited? Where is the harm?
In this specific case, my data is being moved to California. Placing it in direct reach of the US government, which has not been historically shy about abusing that kind of reach. I would quite like my data to stay in the UK, where national governments I don't elect or pay taxes to, can't touch it.
Is the fact that you are friends with John Smith "your" data or "John's" data? What happens if John lives in the US?
Is a message you send to John "your" data or "his"? What about his reply? And vice-versa?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think this is correct. EU is pretty strong in favour of data localisation, UK is not. Moving customers to California doesn’t mean they are no longer under UK privacy rules, which of course are identical to EU privacy rules (for the foreseeable future, could change of course).
While I agree with the theory of what your saying, I'm not so sure it matches the reality. If it did, then why is Facebook moving the data? There would be no benefit. Also it's currently not clear that it's actually legal to move EU citizen data to the US, because the EU doesn't thing the US has strong enough privacy protections. I know that EU citizen data is in the US, and people keep coming up with clever legal st…
So the next best option is to move it to the US based data centers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). Naturally there's a cost to all things: developers need to eat; they need a work/life balance. Unless there's financial backing for a concept or project it will have a hard time getting off the ground. And unless there's some corporate interest in what's being worked on it simply won't be written. The best hope is open-source outreach not as benevolence, but…
> The problem is people expect all things to be free (beer). That may be true, but few people ask the follow up question “why do people expect things to be free?” The answer is usually because companies like Google had pulled a bait-and-switch of sorts where they offered a service for free long before they made a commercial business of people’s profiles. They set this expectation of free themselves. And you can’t rea…
Free was a requirement to have any sort of audience. It's still a burden in a lot ways. I suppose there's some version of the future where Amazon builds a microtransaction platform that allows direct end-user billing of the Lambda-time it took to serve your web request. That would be interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost anyone who publishes something wants people to read it. The ones who don’t care how many people read their ideas don’t publish — they keep it to themselves or just discuss it with friends.
Sounds somewhere in between Plato: 'Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s never “we care for your privacy” but rather “we value your privacy”, which is easy to read as “we assign a value to your privacy”. In that light, the messaging becomes clearer.
This. Companies cannot feel emotions.