newfeatureok
Keep in mind I'm talking about targeted advertising, not advertising in general.
Whatever shall we do?
The funny thing about the whole "do bad things and get kicked off" strategy is that every platform has abusers. Since Big Tech can arbitrarily decide the thresholds and circumstances that lead to being kicked off, this effectively means they can kick anyone off for any reason.
Even on here, on Hacker News, if you dig deep enough I guarantee you can find questionable content (albeit probably downvoted) to justify deplatforming if you were tasked with deplatforming this site anyways.
Also, for niche products wouldn't keyword advertising be just as effective?
Not to say that they'll cease to exist, but I doubt they'll remain the "#1 trading platform."
I wonder if it's possible to play a local multiplayer game using this/parsec or moonlight. I'd love to set it up such that I could play something like Unreal Tournment split screen with two different people in two different locations streaming the same game to both devices and using our controllers are separate inputs on the same computer.
Only so much moderation is possible given a certain amount of moderators and company resources. Are these rules inherently biased against smaller companies?
Suppose you're a single-person startup of an app called "Speak!". Speak! is pretty niche, but one day, a group of the X-People are ostracized on all the popular forums: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Because Speak! is the only remaining bastion for the X-People all of them flock to Speak!. Let's say the X-People say things that aren't exactly popular among those who are not X-People.
BigCo claims that Speak! is not properly moderated. You say that you're only a single person and a certain level of moderation cannot be expected given N number of employees.
If BigCo bans Speak! on the grounds that Speak! is not sufficiently moderated, would that mean that any small person operation who operates a surprisingly large userbase cannot operate?
I think there should be objective quantitative measures that any company can use that's applied evenly across companies. Should a company with 10,000 moderators be held to the same standard of moderation as an extremely popular forum with only a single moderator? You decide.
In FTA it says AWS generally gives 30 days per their contract with Parler, but I mean in general, if there is a general precedent. Even if Parler wanted to do the right thing here, they were pretty much banned everywhere immediately.
We can all agree, for example, that the internet at large enables many bad things, but I doubt any of us would ban the internet (though in other countries this happens).
What about reddit? A specific subreddit? A specific post? A specific user? A specific post by a specific user at a specific time? Obviously Reddit isn't going to be banned, but is the mere existence of moderation enough? Or is it the outcome of the moderation, aka, certain content never being present, that is what's desired?
I'm curious how nuanced these things are for Apple and other companies. Is there some sort of algorithm that says: if this app has a news feed, if X% of items in the newsfeed in a 24hr period are objectionable then it will be banned? Or perhaps Y number of days that fulfill the previous criteria before it is banned?
Would you still believe "you don't have to interact with Supercorp?" If so, the same is true trivially with a government as well. It's very easy to leave the United States if you want. Even if you couldn't leave, you don't have to speak. After all, you have the right to remain silent.
That aside, you would think a sensible government would prevent a private entity from reaching the heights of its abilities in any area.
My point in bringing up business travel is that it still happens during the holiday, almost exclusively by air, but the rate of increased travel from late number until thanksgiving is similar to last year.
Meaning if the rate of change is the same but the amount is offset, that could mean either it’s business travel during the holidays, or that there’s a group of people who were going to travel no matter what (which is my point regarding a lockdown not being followed)
Vehicular travel is also representative because it shows how the behavior people who are within driving distance was hardly affected.
In any case my point was about a lockdown not really being feasible to begin with, which we apparently agree on.
My point is that air travel (along with vehicular) was highest during this thanksgiving despite Covid being the worse during this thanksgiving and people having a good understanding of the risk. This is also shown in your link.
If people are traveling at such numbers (again thanksgiving was highest at any point between now and last March) given what we know now, there’s no way they would follow a lockdown when the effect is unknown like a hypothetical lockdown being done last February.
There’s just no evidence that Americans would’ve obeyed a lockdown at the levels necessary to stop spread.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/11/27/flights-tsa...
Just look at the countries that did best, it’s pretty clear.
That being said I wouldn’t say collectivism is superior in general, but for Covid it was helpful
In general I see zero evidence that Americans at large would’ve followed a “proper lockdown”, by any definition. If you look at travel rates for each American airport this holiday season it’s pretty much confirmed. A company called StreetLight data put it at about 5% to 20% less.
If anyone has data suggesting otherwise please, by all means, reply and let’s see.
https://apnews.com/article/data-americans-thanksgiving-trave...
The question is how can we change American culture to be more collectivist?
For example if I’m going to New York in a month I’d love to say hey I need a ride from Penn Station to Brooklyn and I’m willing to pay $10. Ideally then the driver could, with the help of the app consolidate these requests and then pick me and maybe a few others up and complete the route.