Am I missing something? How is this a bad thing? It’s universally known that social media is bad for youth and I don’t quite understand why this has anything to do with LGBTQ+.
It makes me wonder if the social media companies are sponsoring smear campaigns like this one.
They are built on monetizing human attention. The attention pool is finite and non growing. Mostly kids globally who have more free time. So they have been overfishing for a long time to show everyone they can keep increasing how much Attention they can monetize every quarter.
Now that entire story is breaking down. So they will fight for survival but the good times are over.
It’s the opposite. Meta, OpenAI, and others love age verification because it enables more advertising without liability and they have been silently pushing these laws. They’ve formed unauthentic “grassroots” groups that do their work of smearing the current situation.
It’s a bad thing because people will lose their privacy by having to prove their age. No guarantee of protecting our information can truly be trusted. And once you have to fear not being anonymous, you cannot speak freely online or be yourself. Minorities like LGBTQ have to fear being harassed or targeted if their identity ever gets out.
By the way, age verification is also something pushed by evangelists and project 2025. It’s seen as a backdoor way to ban porn, LGBTQ, and more.
I see so this is more about age verification than an outright social media ban. I understand the controversy there. The wording on this article threw me off.
This seems like progress but it doesn’t practically solve anything. It doesn’t solve that every kid in the US has largely unrestricted school accounts that parents have no control over. It doesn’t really prevent a kid from creating a new account or simply logging out and bypassing it. Shorts would need to be disabled for unauthenticated accounts or educational accounts by default.
100% agree, and I definitely see this in the tech industry and it all begins and ends with psychological safety. Right now there’s job pressure in tech which creates this toxic sense coming from management that they can fire any one at any time because they don’t like you. It essentially fosters this culture to not rock the boat or “piss off the wrong person.” The result is, you keep your mouth shut or significantly risk being penalized on your annual performance review. Add inflation and the ever-rising cost of living. For an individual contributor or even front line management, the choice is very clear. This is obviously a recipe for catastrophe when you’re dealing with human lives.
When you’re a rocket scientist at NASA, you also have relatively few alternatives other than SpaceX or Boeing.
If you want to build a system of monolith services and be locked into a 30 year old waterfall development model, then Oracle is for you.
I’ve had this argument with several DBAs. They always claim “Oracle is the most performant,” while quite possibly true technically, they also tend to run a single massive instance that inevitably leads to a complete failure of the site under heavy load. Oracle is often designed to be the single point of failure. I believe that is by design. The same problems can be solved with modern event driven architectures, better caching, horizontal dynamic scaling, etc.
I had to explain this to some slightly younger colleagues recently. It's hard to believe now, but in ye olde days hardware was not as cheap and abundant as it is now. So you invested heavily in your database servers and to justify the hardware and software cost, ran as many workloads as possible on it to spread the pain.
This is also the same incentives that resulted in many classic architectures from 80s and 90s relying heavily on stored procedures. It was the only place where certain data could be crunched in a performant way. Middleware servers lacked the CPU and memory to crunch large datasets, and the network was more of a performance bottleneck.
> and be locked into a 30 year old waterfall development model,
Oracle switched from Waterfall development model to sprint years ago. They also switched from yearly to quarterly releases (for their Apps) which means they deliver a lot of features in a year.
> They also switched from yearly to quarterly releases (for their Apps) which means they deliver a lot of features in a year.
Without commenting on whether this is true of Oracle, that conclusion doesn't inherently follow from the given. If I'm driving 60 miles per hour, then recalculate it in miles per minute, that doesn't actually mean I'm going faster. Oracle could easily be delivering 1/8 a year's worth of features in 1/4 a year due to release process overhead for all I'd know.
I was searching for jobs using it a while ago and it consumed 80 percent of my iphone’s battery in under 40 minutes. It’s quite impressive. Not even highest end mobile games can do that.
5-eyes, a bit tricky... but yeah anything that isnt a direct data pipeline to US gov and 3-letter agencies is a massive longterm win, in security and economy
I don't think it is. I liked a simpler world we lived without having to worry or look where a company was from.
But since this administration has started to threaten allies and keeps this nonsensical trade balance and tariffs argument (which never accounts for the very bulk of what US really exports: IT and financial services which are never included in the trade balance nonsense) you need to answer in some way.
And with tensions rising staying on US services is becoming a strategic risk.
> which never accounts for the very bulk of what US really exports: IT and financial services
Given the growing demand to move away from US services and towards European alternatives, I wonder what the US will look like in 10 years if this move gains significant momentum.
It makes me wonder if the social media companies are sponsoring smear campaigns like this one.
reply