dosycorp

No my 'of course its not' was sarcastic.

EU members companies.

Come on about rules tho, man. History is messy. People are stupid and evil ( as well as good, obviously ). We live in an age where we have a great pretence of goodness, but really our nature is the same. I'm sure there a lot of double dealing happening behind the veneer of rules. And I think you're naive/uneducated in history if you think not.

That is interesting. There has to be a way that IE gets a significant cut from the Apple money tho. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't. That or in future the recompensated EU members agree to invest more in IE.

Yeah, sure. That was a condition by IE of the EU bringing this ruling. "You have to make us look culpable as well, it's just better for business." You really don't think that's how it works? You're too naive!

Probably. What do I know. Not an expert.

Of course it's not.

Come on. IE is not double dealing to the EU for a bit of kick back somehow? Of course they are. That EU is "forcing" them is hilarious. IE loves to play a fake victim if they can, and in this case, all the better to be open for business. "Oh, EU, please stop getting me to get Apple to pay me taxes. Please stop making me collect revenue." Said no state ever. But believe their fake victim tale if you want. The Irish are clearly too clever for you!

You have to hand it to the Irish. As a plan to collect more tax in the long term, offering (effectively) tax free status by not enforcing "Double Irish w/ Dutch Sandwich", to attract big players, letting them dig themselves into tax-debt holes for a few years while letting them feel they will get off scott-free, then enforcing it and securing a deal to get back-taxes paid, is pretty genius. Very stable genius to help rebuild their economy that was pretty crushed after 2008.

But if there's no accountability, then what's the point in publishing it?

They will execute against their published (or private) policies, and there's no external oversight or way to get them to comply with anything other than what they decide are the standards.

It's not a democratic system. It's a private, totalitarian censorship enforced by a corporation with a clear liberal-politics bias ( why? because that's where they think most of their resources are tied up -- their advertisers' liberal city-dwelling customers are wealthier and thus more important than conservative, poorer country folk, and their worker drones -- mostly Cali based -- so FB staff will be predominantly liberal. )

Yes! Keep going! you are approaching levels of True HN Thought that shouldn't even be possible!!

I love your hustle. Your hustle is good. Also, your copy is inspiring. But sorry I got no money, heh.

Ahem ....to compete with China.

Ha. I'd actually laugh if it wasnt so tragic.

Yes, more, more, more reeducation. I need it! Preserve the unquestionable rightness of True HN Thought!

But folding now. Interesting. We don't know what will happen. You should keep an open mind.

Yes, yes, reeducate me! Help me censor my ideas more completely! Thank you, kind guides, your wisdom in the protection of the glorious community from harm is undeniable! All I can do is submit my stupid and pathetic self more fully to your teachings. Show me the glorious way of True HN Thought!

Good examples.

LinkedIn example tho: I think an interesting argument could be made that they should be blocking accessibility extensions / tools. Since these ( to some extent ) modify and automate UX.

I guess the question in the end is not terms. It is enforcement. Clearly ToS do not cover all cases, and even tho LI ToS say "Thou shalt not scrape" the courts adjudicated differently. So what matters is -- what is enforceable and actually enforced?

The issue of acting as "agent" for user is very important. I don't think the current way this tool does it is OK, because banning is a bad thing. Maybe there is a better way to set it up. Or maybe I'm wrong.

Ha. Short strings of DNA, "chemically boring". Nothing to see here. Probably just junk.

How is it breaking TOS?

If you are projeting the users intent its just like they are accessing the site through a prosthesis.

Its doing things they could do by hand, if they spent the time.

Even a browser "automates" a http request instead of you having to type it by telnet.

Maybe imotif acts similarly to proteins.

Is this actually happening? Are there paid RSS products?

Okay, I confess. I have spoken against the true way of HN and am guilty of advancing ideas counter to the good of the glorious community. I am deeply sorry for how my ideas have damaged the eternal forum. All I can do is submit my useless self to beg for your mercy and surrender to reeducation!!!

Sure, but we vote with majority of uninformed voters.

So democracy has to relegate information to second place, and rely on emotion and narrative to motivate voters.

This doesn't mean democratic leaders can't separate campaign from implementation ( campaign on emotive issues, deliver substantive ones ), but it does make the whole trajectory subject to the gravitational downward pull of fickle/merit-less but emotionally compelling issues.

Hence democracies demonstrated inability to deliver long-term plans and rapid large changes. But technocracy beats democracy there -- there they really care about information at the state planning level.

Hence, say what you want about China's media/mass PR exercise, but look at their results. Go and see them for yourself.

Their system kills a democratic system for delivering large meaningful changes.

And just ask FB. If FB was democratic, instead of autocratic/technocratic/data driven you really think they would be where they are now?

So why insist on it in government then, and pretend you are all so clever / right for doing so?

Seems to me you're just selling yourselves short-changed future in exchange for short-term feeling good about yourselves.

A poor and stupid bargain. But one you are happy with. Why? That's the question to investigate. The why. I think you've been sold on the idea of democracy because it's simply an effective means of keeping you all under control, and of maintaining the status quo so that nothing much ever changes -- and of amplifying and concentrating power in the unaccountable / secret / deep part of the state. You "feel" you have a voice, they give you an outlet, so you do nothing to uprise against it. Very effective control.

The architects of this idea must be laughing to see you all defending your system of bondage so hard. Socrates surely is laughing at you, too.

"Informed voter"

Ha! An oxymoron that Socrates would have chided you for. :)

I think it's interesting. Tech to create a feedback loop to keep you in a particular state.

When I was a kid I really had this thing for switching a light switch between off and on. Know what I mean? There's a spot you can hold it between off and on where the light flickers, and buzzes, at low power, sort of randomly.

I guess this is like that for wake-sleep. Cool state to be in and to get there without drugs, concentration, or whatever else. Very simple.

Can you lucid dream/OBE? Was it possible to learn?

But not fake narratives, fake writing or fake news.

Convenient that new media celebrities and individuals have greatest audience creation power through video, whereas traditional media still holds sway in print / news.

So clearly, understand the origins of the narrative that "fake video" is more dangerous: creator videos are stealing mindshare from traditional media. So of course trad media wants to believe it's dangerous. Because it is dangerous to them. But not for the reasons it pretends. At least not more than fakery in trad media.

Which there is plenty of. Including disguising a defense of their (failing?) business model, as a moral polemic, a subliminal plea that you need to trust "authority" outlets like them, more.

But funny how the concentration of "authority" power, which occurs in places like fact check /snopes, is the very thing those places pretend to be against.

Better in this distributed age to trust a sea of independent creators than a few authority sites, right? Even if the creators are all russian bots the concentrated few could all be pushing a single line.

Or maybe people should just trust themselves, and their own experience. And get more of that, instead of more exposure to media.

Sure ok. I don't know. Just making stuff up.

Yeah I guess so. What do I know.

Relative to LINE/WhatsApp/Messenger/WeChat/Hangouts -- does anyone use SMS?

If big G really thinks it's going to "replace SMS" ( and they can leverage their platform to roll it out / lock in ) then good luck to them, maybe they can replace SMS.

But so what?

SMS was not the killer messaging app.

Those things are elsewhere.

Why does big G have an aversion to big acquisitions?

FB buys WhatsApp & IG -- Great moves

MS has made some big purchases

But the big G seems to purchase, but only for small dollar amounts (relatively). Same with Apple.

Even tho these two corps have (don't they?) big loads of cash.

I think it's technical arrogance. Big G and Apple are used to being revered as King S&&t of their tech.

So they think they can build it themselves. Ahahaha, sure, you can BUILD it...but can you get product/market fit to where it matters as a replacement?

I feel sorry for them. I think Big G and Apple obviously do great, but couldn't they do better to just narrow their focus. Even tho FB is f^&&d up in a lot of ways, one thing to really admire about their business is their narrow narrow focus. Even Oculus makes sense because Zuck sees a "Ready Player 1" world as the future ( with him as God Emperor, of course..heh ).

That's true. Once we start regulating FB we will never be able to stop regulating everything. Soon, tentacles of regulation will be everywhere. Even our thoughts will be regulated. Ok, let's not regulate it then. Good point.

But also, can't we say, if you start allowing FB to grow and operated un regulated what's to stop pretty much anything on the internet to do the same?

Hmm. What to do?