claudiop

Why exactly is this worse?

It is an optional feature that the majority of people will be using, making herd immunity for those who do not

And how exactly do you plan to reach this high quality elite content without search engines?

"[search term] reddit" has been a top search since OpenAI decided to open the SEO bot floodgates.

Just because it is most of the time bullshit, it doesn't mean that is not a thing ever. The "think of the children" doesn't imply that legit application of child-protection laws are not a thing.

Telegram is for example known for Russian military bloggers, which are, in fact, promoting terrorism.

So, instead of fixing the cesspool we just designate a place for them? Why not just going after the ones committing crimes and state that big public groups must have moderation for basic shit? (Like no death threats and that kind of "moderation", not a "I don't like your opinions)

Alternatively: It is not (and generally not even encrypted) and he just happened to be in contempt.

Plenty of military-oriented and shady-business going in in there.

There's still the possibility that the authorities wanted to go after specific someones with a proper warrant and Durov blocked it. No country on earth goes for that.

We'll get to know the charges soon enough.

What you are trying to point is that in the United States of America (and maybe Canada) you people have coffee that's so expensive that two of them pay for YT premium. You're only missing out on most of the internet (eg. Not the US).

Starbucks is notoriously expensive and nobody refers to it as coffee round here. Starbucks in my first world country is considered something for hipster digital nomads. You can't find them outside areas with tourists as everyone else is happy with "regular" coffee that's literally 10 times cheaper.

Saying that two coffees equate to YouTube premium while using Starbucks as a metric is like saying that a car only costs a watch or two while using a Rolex as the reference watch. If you consider a Rolex to be your reference watch, cool, you're a privileged minority.

Well, to begin with, both the watcher and the creator are clients of the platform. Both sides feel bound to it, even if both dislike it.

Then, YouTube premium is literally 20 machine coffees a month in my first world country. 15 if they're done by someone. You seem to be speaking "privileged minority".

As for the "no system is foolproof", you're thinking of implementations, not algorithms. An algorithm can indeed be something-proof. Most "known" algorithms are built on top of very strong mathematical foundations stating what is possible, what is not and what is a maybe.

As for the ads thing, Mozilla is not making a dime off this. It is not monetizable. They're basically expecting that by giving advertisers a fairly "benign" way to do their shenanigans they will stop doing things the way they currently do (with per-individual tracking).

The absolutists might say that there's no such thing as benign ads, however truth is that the market forces behind ads are big enough that you'd get website-integrity-bullshit rather ad-free web. Having tracking less ads is better than having a "this website only works in chrome" or "only without extensions" internet.

Is there any other possibility? Maybe. Is is reasonable to think that the moment tracking starts getting blocked em masse, we risk a web-integrity-bullshit +wherever-said-tracking-can-exist-only internet? I think so.

You can't encrypt anything without a key. This is the key. If it wasn't in plaintext then it would be encrypted. Then you'd need a key for that. Where do you put it?

Phone OSs have mechanisms to solve this. Desktop ones do not.

So, if you want to have any sense of a service respecting you, it should be hosted on a server you can control?

No difference at all between the server of the world's biggest advertiser and a server by a company that opens itself for audits and is in a country whole laws require no bullshit? Are you sure those two are the same? All or nothing?

You just happen to be conflating hard limitations of a physical substance with arbitrary soft limitations. Of course you cant replace chips with sand despite both having a % of silicon. Those are entirely different things.

Wine and gasoline aren't the same thing at all, they just happen to have one common element in their composition.

The iPad and a computer ARE the same thing. The label is something the brand puts on, it is not an hard limitation of the universe.

I personally don't care if IKEA says that their bedroom furniture is for the bedroom. If I decide to use it as living room furniture I can and IKEA should not have a say, however they probably would if they could.

Brands like to have that weird control when they can, generally not in worries we're doing something weird with stuff but for some strategic benefit, such as not cannibalising sales of something else.

If IKEA could bind pieces of furniture to types of room, you'd be more likely to have to buy more furniture over your lifetime. It would also maybe prevent them from having to comply with some regulation with the "our furniture is not furniture, is an... habitational support"! argument.

They partially solve the fuel and the bad air problems. In exchange they damage roads way more (I recall reading that the damage is proportional to the vehicle weight to the fourth power, probably with some more nuance) and that also creates substantially more rubber micro particle pollution. They also happen to be more dangerous in the event of a crash. Plus the additional challenges with grid load, which some people dismiss with silly ideas like having said cars act like load balancers (that would be a mess to scale).

In most cases, EVs are not a solution to mobility, they are a solution to save the car industry from real solutions to climate change, namely spamming trams, trains and buses (in sparse locations) all over the place.