throwaway237289

> I also dislike that I have to choose between giving up all my privacy to a ton of ad providers or needing 100 different subscriptions to get some good content.

> I kinda hope that Mozilla (or someone else) finds a way to become the Spotify/Netflix of the web. A place where I can pay a single fee that then gets distributed between the platforms and sites I visit. But I kinda know that that will never happen, since it gives too much power to that one platform.

You mean you want... the cable TV bundle again? Literally the thing that the article rails against, because cable TV inherently produces "sensationalism, link baiting, and the path to shallow 10-o'clock-news reporting."

Amazing.

Maybe you should actually check the facts, instead of just making a witty remark? The EC has regulated Microsoft into product decisions to make third-parties as unrestricted as Microsoft itself. See here:

> (11) Microsoft shall make available to interested undertakings Interoperability Information that enables non-Microsoft server Software Products to interoperate with the Windows Client PC Operating System on an equal footing with Microsoft Server Software Products. Microsoft shall provide a warranty with respect to this Interoperability Information (including any updates), as specified in the general provisions in Section B.I of this Undertaking, effective 1 January 2010 for Windows Vista and Windows 7, and effective 15 March 2010 for Windows XP.

https://news.microsoft.com/2009/12/16/microsoft-statement-on...

Microsoft Interoperability Undertaking (Dec. 16, 2009, .doc file)

It's not a controversial take. You just lack understanding of the English language.

OP: Looking at two countries in an actual long running war...

You: This isn’t really all hell breaking loose actual war.

Nobody used the term "all hell breaking loose". You did. You redefined the conversation to be about 100% mobilization (from Russia), and then got all pissy that people called you out.

Is it surprising that the audience for "serious investigation into misallocated funds in local county" is extremely small? Is it really wild that you don't see this is a niche, that most people don't care enough to pay for someone to do that work?

It's not the web. It's democratization. And unfortunately, people would rather watch dancing cats then pay someone to tell them what their local county is doing. That's called consumer choice and fighting it is like fighting nature.

> If companies would respect the spirit behind GDPR and not store data that is not needed to fulfill a user's requests and protect the data that they must have in a way that makes dragnet searches impossible, this would not be a problem.

This is ridiculous. Literally the authorities are the one demanding information, so that they can abuse that power.

And you're blaming the people with information?

Stop fighting the wrong war: hold the people with power accountable. That's the government here. They can use force and put you in jail. That's power.

Don't be fooled by talk about security or privacy.

This is simple Nation State realpolitik. TikTok is a propaganda threat controlled by a non-friendly state to the US.

Any other way to look at this is naive.

There's something hilarious about your framing of "get too big to be shut down".

You actually said "if you get popular enough that the public will vote against people who threaten to enforce the law".

So someone builds a product that the public likes, something they demand that politicians allow, and somehow this is "too big to be shut down". Do you forget that modern democracies pretend that their authority derives from the will of the people?

The law is not sacred. Get off your high horse.

Actually, yes, the American tech companies are working hard to enrich humanity. They enrich themselves too. But they've given off tremendous consumer surplus just in comparison to the previous decade, and you'd have to argue in bad faith to suggest otherwise.

But hey you can complain about Americans tech companies. It fits right into the GP's point that attacking American tech companies is hot for governments.

Will be great to see Japan become world leaders in AI and for the regulators to realize they're shooting themselves in the foot.

Oh yeah - behavioural advertising is unacceptable. Behavioural content in your newsfeed is okay. That's some strong privacy protections there!

They don't dare ban the website because of political backlash, so they'll regulate how the (foreign) company makes money. Strong morals there!

You teach those filthy capitalists while you sit on a sovereign fund of oil wealth.

This answer is incredibly technocratic, and misses the mark on what a digital signature is.

A digital signature is a legal construct that stands up in court.

The movement might have begun, but you need to change your perception. You have to stop talking like a technocrat and address the business problem that signatures solve.

I think that "for writing" is incredibly generic and a terrible search term. If you were talking to a human being about this, and you clarified that you weren't simply looking for text editors, but text editors "for writing", I would tell you that you hadn't clarified anything at all. Do you think one doesn't "write code"?

You might as well had said "for typing". And even THAT might have implied voice vs keyboard.

There's an amazing subtlety here, which is that Governments are slow to function and rarely regulate well. That they're targeting Meta instead of what kids actually use (TikTok) highlights this fact.

So not only will they fail to achieve their goal, they're not even going after the right player.

But hey the cultural movement of Americans these days are to hate on big tech, and Facebook in particular. So here we go.

Operations is time-sensitive, and airlines are real-time operations with actual lives at stake.

Introducing bug fixes may ship additional bugs. That's a real risk.

The scale of the system needed to get you and your luggage flying overseas in an economically viable way says a lot about how amazing the current system is. But sure, complain about HTML tags being printed and assume you could do better.

Since you want to get to the root cause and we're talking about USA, I believe that would be the American people.

Also - corporations are full of people. And those are all Americans. Even lobbyists are Americans.

But we should do something useful, and we're looking for easier targets to focus our rage and aggression on. I recommend those being the people that explicitly have been given power. Based on what I know about the American constitution, I believe that would be the government.

This is one of those things where it's cold practicality. A company realizes the political headwinds and has decided that it'll do its best with a bad hand. This is what leaders want? We'll throw our support behind the least bad option.

But articles like this complain about the company, instead of the politicians. What a load of crap.

If you're an actual, paying customer of NYT, then I would hazard that you're welcome to tell them you don't like what they're doing by not paying them.

If you're a freeloader that's just talking about generic morals and integrity, welcome to reality. Businesses get paid by giving customers what they want.

Absolutely. Your tone comes off as negative, but it's actually the truth and it's better you accept it today.

Welcome to reality, where people get paid by customers to do work.

HN is still a site about creating businesses, right?

The NYT needs to consider its customers, and ensure they find the balance to make its customers happy. For them, there's a fine line between event reporting, "truth", and point of view.

It's not political backlash. It's pissing off your subscription base. And that's really dumb.

You're creating a strawman that doesn't exist from the article. There's no ask to be fast and perfect.

The ask was that retractions happen, and that journalists own up to being wrong.

There's evidence provided to show that NYT is very reluctant to backtrack.

I love the infringement on freedom you propose (you can't use your private property or money to own media) in the attempt to prop up a different freedom (speech rights).

I also love that you confuse "not being paid to say things" with "banned from saying things". Speech rights aren't even at risk here. But yes, let's infringe on some freedoms.