Olives @olives@qoto.org

So, I figured out what specifically bugs the very rare trolls. Saying that people shouldn't be treated like garbage, because they think you are talking about them, even if it has nothing to do with them, lol.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/09/us-government-considers-historic-break-up-of-google-in-antitrust-case/ What do you think of this?

When I first saw how much data Facebook asks from their users to display on their profiles, I think they call them "walls" (many years ago), I was very surprised.

If we're on the fediverse for long enough, maybe we'll learn another language or two by exposure. That would be cool.

It's not like Facebook is Linkedin (I'm not arguing that Linkedin *should* have more info), why do they need to know where someone works? (And it'd be concerning if they were because that is blurring personal / professional boundaries).

If someone who knows you wants to know that, they can just ask you.

Something which some people miss is that it is not simply that Facebook uses people's data in one way or another.

Facebook is the ultimate data hog. For the profiles, they want your name, they want your phone number, they want your location, they want to know where you work, they want everything.

It is designed such that there is always an excuse for them to ask for more data from you. It might be "convenient" in some way.
#privacy

To look at it another way, if Zuckerberg suddenly decided he didn't want to use people's data in this way, would it suddenly become a good idea to post all this information onto his platforms? I don't think so.

I don't think that "AI" makes personal privacy suddenly start to matter.

Rather, people like Zuckerberg have been telling people that privacy doesn't matter for decades and to post their photos and info onto his platforms.

Conventionally, that has always been a bad idea. Considering that his entire business model has involved monetizing people's data for decades, it's not surprising that he is looking for another way to do it.

Also, there is going to be a signal to noise ratio. A lot of stories are probably more noise. Maybe, the process of cutting stories out is just as important as the process of including them.

I've never been a fan of incendiary clickbait style sites (even a decade ago, I didn't like these), and these aren't sites that I go out of my way to visit.

If Google does get broken up, I hope it leads to better journalism, rather than having to deal with sensationalistic clickbait "journalism".

Incendiary click me type articles on a former journalist's blog... Uh, let's call it an "indie media outlet".

The sensationalism gets my attention, not because I see the original person posting it, but because I see a far right grifter posting it.

If you remember, there are two posts for this, this is the longer one with a lot more citations.

When someone tries to make the point that fantasy rape and torture are acceptable kinks but something strangely specific that the individual doesn't like isn't.

The United Kingdom. Where someone really wants to believe that some stupid morality law which was only passed for England and Wales somehow also applies to Northern Ireland and Scotland, because of their love for locking people up.

If someone consults Wikipedia on the law, they're either going to end up in prison or think they can be arrested for farting.

It's usually someone complaining about the same thing over and over and acting as if that something is novel.

I don't think it makes much difference but still.