"10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However:"
You're probably ignoring your own bias in this (and I say this as someone with no stake in US politics and who cares very little about Twitter). I read the thread expecting some huge revelation and there was none. Flop describes it pretty accurately.
1. Governments and public figures ask social media company to review posts that may violate ToS and/or law.
2. Social media company reviews posts with some internal debate and comes to conclusion.
Big deal.
The only thing that's really concerning in this is how much importance Twitter has when it comes to US politics and that it's now owned by one billionaire who's openly political (and spreads conspiracy theories). I can't imagine much debate happening in these content reviews anymore when the boss openly fires people who have the nerve to disagree with him.
I’ve noticed this since the lockdowns in 2020/21. We were locked down quite heavily in the UK and the days just started to blend into one. So it’s understandable that my memory during that period would not be great, particularly recalling when things happened. However - since we got back to normal it hasn’t recovered. I forget half the things that happened in the last year until I see photos reminding me. Stuff that feels like it happened recently happened a year or two ago, and vice versa. My partner has the exact same issue.
I was pro lockdown (until we got the population vaccinated) and I still believe that was the right thing to do. But I also think there are knock on effects small and large that we are going to feel for a long time. My memory being out of whack is definitely one and I’m curious if anyone else has seen a similar change?
Looking at it from a users perspective, people constantly trying to airdrop me stuff is not something I want, even though I want to use “everyone” at times. I’ve had this happen in public before and it’s annoying but maybe it’s become so widespread that it’s a UX issue in China?
You could look into NextCloud and their NextCloud Office if you haven't heard of it yet. If you have are there any point that speak against it in your opinion?
It's open source so you can even self host. Should be more than enough for most comapnies.
Not sure how difficult the set-up process for an enterprise environment is, I only used the docker version before. But should be viable and if a company has Money for Microsoft365 they should have money to pay to someone to set it up manage for them.
I know NextCloud, for having self-hosted it for years, alongside many other similar software and having reviewed its code. I am a strong proponent of open source, both as a user and a developper - and managed IT for very large companies (thi si to bring some context to my comments).
While something like NextCloud or Seafile it is fine for personal use or for small teams it is no way close to something like Microsoft 365 with the extensive backend it provides out of the box. Not to mention email integration.
Again, this is from the perspective of someone who uses and develops open source software and hots a lot of services for personal/family ise, but also from someone who knows the complexity and shitbat crazy wrchitectures you find in large, distributed companies.
If we managed to have in Europe something similar to Zoho, driven by European laws, that would be fantastic. We do not, and this is a real shame.
> But should be viable and if a company has Money for Microsoft365 they should have money to pay to someone to set it up manage for them.
Microsoft 365 is expensive, but the expense of running a home-made solution for a large company is not only the pure management, but also the ability to have hope if there is a problem. I have raised issues for Nextcloud (some of them quite impacting from a security monitoring perspective) and the community replies were horrible. If NextCloud does not monitor the community forum when someone raises such issues then I cannot have any trust that they will fix it for a paying user.
I have to admit though that O365 is handy for collaboration. I hope we can do something like a LibreOffice-based similar thing that companies can star using as a platform for online collaboration.
Where I work we already have lots of regulations on what we can and what we can't store on SharePoint or work on O365. My job is mostly safe from those inconveniences, but one of my first jobs was to build an asset delivery system that would comply with a number of US and EU regulations on what asset can be delivered to whom from where. Took lots of meetings with legal.
If your business processes are based on that: yes. You may argue "adapt your processes" but that's not something that you do within a week. Besides that it's also about exchanging information. Excel is a quasi-standard in some cases. Again you may argue "change that, its ridiculous". Still it's not something that you "just do".
The first two do not have low latency high bandwidth connections (or often any connection at all) to the user to collect data, so it's not a reasonable comparison. As for the third, I understand that duck.com claims this, but I don't buy their claims, considering their behavior. None of these sites that claim to not collect user data should be trusted until they submit to a transparent audit that exposes all their infrastructure. As for the fourth, this is a tiny exception to the rule held up by some individual with standards.
Apple doesn't fit the pattern of any of your examples.
Had anyone actually substantiated the claim about the unconfirmed non-disabling device ID beyond a single packet and theorizing about encrypted packets?
Because the whole article is based on this evidence and peoples’ desire to dog pile on apple.
Can you be an ad company and respect your users, though? Google and Microsoft failed to do this, not because they didn't protect their user's identity but because they kept squeezing for more and more cash when the UX was already hurting. I'm not confident that Apple can resist those temptations (judging by the way they treat their own native advertising).
Adding advertising likely will cost them hardware sales. if so, their hardware branch might have enough clout to keep their advertising branch under control.
Phrased another way: adding a few billions of advertising revenue wouldn’t make Apple an advertising company, just as selling smartphones hasn’t made Google a hardware company
They already have advertising, at least in MacOS. Every time I put on my headphones I get a pop-up ad for Apple Music, and I can't hide iCloud or Safari's constant nagging to get me to use them.
Everyone has their own limits, but I left the ecosystem after Mojave (with this being one reason).
I don’t know, is that really advertisement? These seems more akin to a program’s popup of its new features or that you can also go pro. Sure, nitpickingly these are ads, but they are related to the context, not intrusive, and not coming from a third party.
If anything, it is more analogous to my friend telling me about that vacuum cleaner he bought that he finds a great buy when I bring up the topic of vacuum cleaners. Surely, it is still an ad, but you get the difference.
That’s a mac, and while I agree it is one of those pesky, annoying ones, it is likely more of an oversight/not enough people care thingy to count it as a bug.
I use a mac and an iphone without apple music and never seen anything like that.
As an ad broker, you usually cannot. If you respect the users privacy, and another competing ad broker does not, then the competitor will make better ad placement decisions, get a higher click through rate, and give advertisers better ROI. Therefore, the ad broker that respects privacy will get less and less business and die.
The only way an ad broker can respect privacy is if they can prevent any other ad broker operating in the same marketplace. Ie. You need to be a monopoly in your niche.
Apple can do this by hobbling any other ad provider operating on iPhones or targeting iPhone user through their app store rules.
I think they point in the general direction of Google's Play Store, and exclaim, "Here's another app store, hence we're not a monopoly", and then proceed to enjoy their monopoly.
It's all a matter of definitions. For example, Google doesn't sell user data to third parties, does that make Google respect user privacy a lot better than other ad companies? Sure yes. But Google often takes user data from one product and uses it for targeting in a different product, and it doesn't respect user privacy as much as a non-ad company.
Ad companies generally don't. Data brokers will set user data, but advertisement based companies do not sell user data.
> does that make Google respect user privacy a lot better than other ad companies?
"better" is the operative word in that statement. Just because Google spies on me and is slightly less worse about how they use that data, does not mean that they respect my privacy.
I mean, I haven't audited their systems and haven't seen any reports from independent auditors, but at least they are making direct statements about privacy that the other ad networks aren't.
>> I entered the workforce in late 2020 and have never worked full-time in an office longer than summer internships
I don’t mean to dismiss your point entirely. Even as someone who prefers WFH I can’t deny there are some benefits to the office. However the grass is always greener. Pre-Covid my days in the office involved sitting at my desk, working alone. A short lunch with colleagues. More sitting at my desk working alone, occasionally jumping on a Zoom meeting. A lot of the time people are just getting things done and collaboration is minimal. Moving this back in office actually doesn’t make much difference, you’re just alone in a group setting. Obviously this doesn’t apply to everyone and all jobs but I feel it’s applicable to a lot of tech work.
That is a very reasonable point and I have been trying hard to be objective and avoid "grass is greener" thinking.
From the short periods when I have worked in offices in-person, you are correct that the lion's share of the time is spent working alone on projects just as it is when working from home. However, where I did internships, I made friends among my colleagues and would eat lunch with them (and Fridays everyone went to the pub for a longer lunch); further, people would talk to each other in passing while we were working and there was a distinct feeling of "collective enterprise" and solidarity that helped to push through the inevitable tedious aspects of the work. Even though the socialisation wasn't often at all work-related, it made the work easier and more enjoyable. I do accept that this argument is dependant on working in a company whose social culture is suited to you, which is not easy to find.
All that said, there is nothing that can compare to WFH for "deep work," where you know what you are doing and just need time to get on with it withoug anyone breathing down your neck. For that reason, I don't think I could ever work full-time on-site and would always aim for a balanced hybrid model, if given the choice.
I guess a lot of it comes down to solitude vs loneliness: the line between the two can be distressingly thin.
Personally I underestimated the effect of small, on the surface unimportant, human interactions. I love being alone and I recharge from solitude. But the small encounters at the coffee machine or just smiling to a colleague is still human interactions where another human being recognises you and you have a brief connection.
During covid and WFH I did not have those and that had a noticably negative impact on my mental wellbeing. Even to the point that I thought everyone else was the culprit and if only I had to deal less with people then it would get better. But that was not the case.
WFH is of course different if you have a family around you, but I still think that there is an important factor in seeing other people even if it feels superficial. That was at least my own conclusion.
Dice is fantastic. Another thing they do is allow you to join a waiting list for sold out events. People who have bought tickets and want to return them can return them to the waiting list (and people on the waiting list will get a notification offering them a few hours to purchase the newly returned ticket). If someone on the list buys it they are refunded.
Counterpoint: Dice is terrible. Sure it makes sense for bigger artist that will sold out, but for most it is not necessary and it forces you :
- To have a smartphone
- To give out your phone number
- To create an account
The worst? You can't even resale the ticket if the event is not sold out! Usually if I'm unable to attend a concert, I'll put my ticket up for sale for half the price, but with Dice, you just wasted money on empty seats. Great.
Dice say that if someone wants to be able to purchase your ticket then you can sell it to them via their platform at no cost to you. i.e. you can return your ticket if someone wants it.
I do not know of any ticket that can be returned "just because".
Even a theatre or opera will accept returns only if they have demand for them.
Now compare to the majority of platforms that don't allow returns even when there is demand for them... or that will charge late arriving fans a higher price than face value for the returned tickets.
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from this whole debacle, it’s that US employment law is fucked. I can’t believe worker protections are so poor in such a forward thinking, modern country. The things he’s getting away with sound like something out of a Victorian factory.
Nobody knowledgeable is going to argue that US employment law is great, but in much of the US worker protections are targeted towards those that do not make a lot of money.
Twitter's software developers make a lot of money. The only similarity to a Victorian factory worker is that they have two arms and legs (but all of their fingers and toes).
I'm not sure how this is the lesson you're taking away from twitter when the workers are getting three months severance, unlike your typical service sector worker who can basically be fired by their manager on the spot. The US is a dynamic economy and your compensation is for the most part whatever you can negotiate. At the VP level it's not uncommon to get severance packages of a year or more at $200-300k, and at the C-suite level the numbers can hit millions of dollars.
"Worker protections" generally means "small business deterrents". Worker protections are great if you want a small number of large corporations to rule everything.
Hiring people is ridiculously expensive (their salary and even health care/benefits are a small fraction of the total cost), and the last thing small businesses need is even more expense to hire. Large companies can amortize with economies of scale (e.g. HR departments).
You could try to play a cat-and-mouse game (e.g., make laws that apply only to companies with more than X employees, so companies restructure so it applies to them), which then leads to laws so complicated that only large companies with dedicated lawyers could afford to navigate.
And here we are now. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" combined with "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
In theory. In reality I live somewhere with lots of worker protections, lots of small businesses and I know people who run very small “mom and pop” type businesses who have absolutely no problem obeying these laws.
Why should a private company not be allowed to lay off staff that they don't need or want?
If the government cares so much about workers, why don't they take care of them themselves, like with a guaranteed job or training program, instead of forcing other individuals to do so?
I'm not sure we're forward looking or modern? We have no trains. Sprawl. Won't build housing. A third of the country seems to believe we should aspire to be in a Margaret Atwood novel.
"10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However:"