Recent comments in /f/technology

tundey_1 t1_jc2yo43 wrote

Also, Elmo doesn't have that many developers to spare. He's starting a costly war that he doesn't have the resources to fight. Kinda like what a person who refuses to pay his bills and would rather be sued by the King of England!

1

Culverin t1_jc2vbim wrote

Every time I see one of these articles pop up, I lose a little more faith in humanity.

WHY THE FUCK IS SOCIAL MEDIA ALLOWED ON A GOVERNMENT DEVICE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Apps should be on a whitelist basis only.

Unless you're in a public-facing role specifically meant for marketing/communication, this shouldn't even be a thing. Any competent IT team would have these policies on lock before it was even an issue.

4

blindedtrickster t1_jc2tsga wrote

> we shouldn't blame individuals for the flaws in a system

I still disagree with this mentality. If you recognize that it's a bad system, what reasonable basis is there to conclude that taking advantage of a bad aspect of a system doesn't assign some level of 'badness' to a person?

Elon's system has helped Ukraine, yes, but he's still looking at is as 'how profitable can this be for me?'. Profit as a primary motive is incredibly dangerous and I don't think it's a good thing. Profit isn't inherently bad, but when profit takes the form of price gouging, it clearly is bad. So there is some form of line in the sand where 'don't hate the player, hate the game' stops being a defendable perspective.

Elon didn't create the technology and he almost doubled the cost to Ukraine-based Starlink subscriptions. He saw an opportunity for more profit and had no problem with it. He didn't care about what negative effects that could/would have on Ukraine.

So no, 'don't hate the player, hate the game' isn't a good methodology. It's bad because bad players working to create a rigged game. If you're unwilling to look at the people creating a rigged game and simply blame the game, you won't ever fix the game.

Finally, it's not a game. It's entire economies and real people. It's regular people's livelihoods. It's important.

2

FamousSuccess t1_jc2ry05 wrote

Well. Keep in mind that google effectively sells advertising based on user data, and their services/users depend entirely on content and data of non google entities.

So I’d say if google can build a business on other entities public data, so can you.

Not a perfect parallel but a parallel nonetheless

1

GrouchyDirection7201 t1_jc2qhop wrote

Yeah, it helps it you think about this as a case.

Its Q3 2022. Spotify has spent $XM on loyalties, exclusive artists deals (e.g. Joe Rogan) etc. The overall user growth listening to this music and podcasts we paid for is decreasing. We forsee our users ignoring Spotify and prefering to spend time on TikTok, Insta etc for entertainment, curate music taste etc. We want to double down on user engagement and get users interested in Spotify. You are the PM in charge of the new Spotify. What do you do?

If your answer is "spend more money on music and stream that" - we already spent a lot, and not all artists are willing to sign Spotify deals.

1

zardvark t1_jc2nlpf wrote

The useful idiots pile onto anything that does not meet the standards of neo-Marxist "thought." I put thought in quotes because these people are not capable of any original thought of their own. They are only capable of regurgitating Leftist dogma, like religious zealots.

They are also quite violent. I recently had one "type" out loud that anyone who does not agree with them should at a minimum be put in a gulag, but what they really deserved was to be gassed and stuffed into an oven. Of course a couple of hours later they deleted this series of comments ...

We are rapidly headed to a very ugly place!

2

Mr_ToDo t1_jc2mzgd wrote

Don't worry, he said those publishing "good" content will be except.

It's a good thing he has that trust and safety council or it would be all up to him what good content is...

It is amusing that he's not denying access to "bad" content publishers, they just have to give him money first. That's just so wonderful of him isn't it ;)

4

Mr_ToDo t1_jc2lulp wrote

Well it doesn't use the API, and assuming that it doesn't use a login then it's probably not bound by the EULA since it would all be public data with no agreement to see it.

Could be a bit of fun if it removes the login prompt, but it's pretty random normally and if there isn't an actual hard limit to what you can load then removing it is likely just a technicality at best(It seems more concerned about how long I stare at old tweets then how far down I scroll. I know sometimes I've gone years down if I don't stop scrolling)

2

dubiousadvocate t1_jc2jom8 wrote

I don’t think legality enters into it. At worst it’s a EULA violation. Like any public facing website. Grounds for banning the account but these would be throw away accounts to begin. Musk would whine about it but he’d probably also embrace the artificial user numbers at the same time.

One thing we’ve all learned about the man during this debacle is he’s self destructively impulsive and undisciplined.

2

MustacheInterpreter t1_jc2jlsb wrote

Twitter for now is an unmediated source of direct communication to an audience without paywalls, tweaks by journalists or their employers. For now. That's lifeblood to these movements. I'm not here to argue with you. Ukraine has itself said the same thing.

7

Ok_Sir5926 t1_jc2jkei wrote

You know it hasn't existed for very long? There were things before Twitter, there will be things after Twitter. People found out about shit long before tweets existed. I probably won't follow the goal posts on this one, so no need to move them again. I have a Twitter account. I've logged into it MAYBE 5 times. I still keep up on "things that I follow." I simply use other resources.

Oh, I also don't give a shit about the Musk drama. I find it funny people get so worked up about it. Doesn't mean the concept of the app is worth a shit.

−3

dubiousadvocate t1_jc2iun3 wrote

The value of the data comes from the quality of data. What we’re seeing with twitter is the data is low quality, too much noise not enough signal.

This was true before Musk was forced to buy Twitter. In fact when Musk finally got around to doing basic due diligence after he locked himself into the deal he himself used the low quality as his reason to bail out. 🙄🤣

3

Ok_Sir5926 t1_jc2isn0 wrote

It's a method they choose to use because there's people on it.

Are you implying there's no way to talk to a large audience of people in 2023 without a specific free social media platform?

−4

MustacheInterpreter t1_jc2ih4d wrote

Just an aside: Ukraine uses Twitter to put its cause directly before the world. Nascent rebellions, such as in Iran, do also. Twitter is about far more than me showing you what I'm eating.

13