upvote

points

by Fiveplus5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby radicalbyte2 hours ago|
next
[-]
It's the US, all you have to do is drive a truckload of cash into Mar-A-Lago and you'll get whatever you want.
reply
upvoteby john_strinlai5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
>Gotta give it to Zuck.

if "it" is the middle finger, for sure. "terrifying" is a great choice of word for it.

reply
upvoteby bigyabai4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I was equally impressed/terrified by Apple's marketing blitz around client-side-scanning. So many people got paid to advocate for that, and the community barely convinced them it was a bad idea. There's not much hope left for any of FAANG deliberately resisting surveillance.
reply
upvoteby classified3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Why would they resist surveillance? They're making massive profits from it.
reply
upvoteby dfedbeef4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Idk the low road is generally the easier one.
reply
upvoteby mentalgear4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Well, I certainly prefer if big tech fight each other instead of the user as sometimes there might even come something good out of it - like elevated privacy in Apple's ATT case.

Overall, that's the reason anti-trust laws must be applied rigorously, otherwise the normal population has no chance.

reply
upvoteby mlyle4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sometimes something good (ATT). Sometimes something bad (this terrible age-verification thing that is a huge barrier to entry for small entrants and comes with massive state surveillance risk).

In the end, all the little people are just collateral damage or occasionally they get some collateral benefits from wherever the munitions land.

reply
upvoteby PaulHoule3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Personally I've lived in the world of "small entrants" and can see that but I think the average voter doesn't really understand that "just anybody" could have created an online service. That is, they think you have to have VC money, be based in Silicon Valley, have to have connections at tha pp store, that it's a right for "them" and not for "us".
reply
upvoteby mlyle1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This isn't about the average voter-- this is about an entrenched industry creating structural barriers to entry to protect growing monopoly power.
reply
upvoteby d--b2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
That law is perhaps an annoyance for Apple, but it can't cost them billions, can it? I seriously doubt that it would cost Apple more than the several hundred million dollars Meta still needs to funnel in order to get those laws passed in more states.

Plus, Apple gets to be the gatekeeper for Meta and other apps which can't be good for meta, and Apple gets to know the age of its users, which in itself is monetizable.

reply
upvoteby bitpush9 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> That law is perhaps an annoyance for Apple, but it can't cost them billions, can it?

The CEO has 24h in the day, and he/she is asked to be deposed (laws and legal system has that power), it chips away from grand visions. It isnt just money, you cant just stand up a team and be done with it. Everybody will be coming at you.

Expect to see a lot "Y alleges Apple didnt do enough to protect kids" and the burden of proof will be on Apple to make their executives available.

reply