No, they're platforms for spreading information that place less of an inherent value on the pedigree of the source. This is partially a good thing because opinions and personal experience have a place somewhere in the epistemological hierarchy that mainstream news discounts. Making one's news diet wholly (or even mostly) social media is a mistake, but making it entirely news outlets is little different. I've found a good mix is "reputable" newspapers plus a bit of twitter.
Of course, I've also read a lot of garbage from those respectable outlets. A lot of slant and a lot of poorly-researched "journalism". This is basically a respectability politics problem; the NPR class is offended more that people have abandoned the trappings of "proper information" than over the information itself.
The problem is people don't often bother to corroborate information which suits their bias. This naturally leads to extremification and polarization. And TikTok is like a distilled version of that. Whereas ChatGPT might hallucinate on you, a gigantic portion of TikTok creators are actively deceiving you for personal gain, and the fraud, slander, political/religious peer pressure and downright harmful disinformation have largely gone unnoticed by regulators and law enforcement.
TikTok is not a place to get news. The culture isn't there, and the UI purposefully doesn't lend to things like sharing sources.
> The incentives to deceive are the same for content creators regardless the platform.
This is not true at all. Podcasters have no consequences for deceiving, and can easily recover from it by saying they're not journalists and that ends the subject there.
Try that with a News Outlet, then it would be Joe Rogan saying they're liars and are compromised.
There should be way more accountability for those platforms that have no code of ethics to abide by. Even the self-proclaimed "intellectual dark web" is extremely opinionated about a wide range of subjects way beyond their domain of expertise.
I'm not saying all news outlets are pristine, but comparing journalism, as an institution, and putting it at the same level of accountability as podcasters is just wrong.
I agree. I don't get political news from any video source. I go to these platforms for commentary and discussion, but I establish knowledge and fact check out-of-band.
And I'm still highly suspect of print media, I try to stick to individual journalists and editors who haven't gotten on my shitlist. Grassroots journalism is so good these days for many issues that it's getting easier to avoid conventional outlets altogether.
Entirely true. China has been storing encrypted data for years specifically preparing for when CRQCs are available [1] and this is a huge concern for basically everyone in the world. There's a solid chance other evil actors have been doing the same.
Denying access to data that could still be specifically subpoenaed isn't destruction of evidence, it's a normal security measure. They still have the warrant to search everything in the office, but not the right to use those computers to access uber's entire worldwide infrastructure.
I have no idea what french law says about it but I think it's morally fine and don't care that uber did it.
I think this is an example of law lagging technology. A warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of a safe inside a house. Similarly, the law should be updated so that a warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of local computers. Local computers surely have valid certificates that allow the computers to connect to the mothership, right?
Does a search warrant for your house give the police the right to search your car, if they found your car keys in your house? What about your neighbour's or your employer's car - perhaps on the other side of the world - if you happened to have those keys? To compel you not to tell your employer to change the locks, so the seized keys won't work?
These seem like closer real-world analogies for what exactly a warrant to search someone's computer should entitle the police to do.
Your analogy doesn’t work. Your neighbor is not you.
$COMPANY is $COMPANY all around the world and if $COMPANY wants to do business in $COUNTRY (which is not an obligation, they choose to), then yes, they have to entirely cooperate with $COUNTRY.
If they don’t want to, they can still do business elsewhere.
This is the thing which is not the case. The subsidiary in the US is nearly always a different company than the one(s) in Europe. They'll have different management and different lawyers etc. Sometimes they even have different owners, e.g. because one of them is a joint venture with some other company, or a franchise. And they have to be different, because different countries have different laws and those laws often conflict with each other. So the subsidiary in the US follows US law and the one in France follows the law in France.
You could try to make it otherwise, but it's pretty obvious what would happen then. Companies couldn't formally operate in multiple countries because their laws are incompatible, so instead there would be a straw front company in any given country that nominally isn't owned by the conglomerate, but is effectively just reselling their product/service in that country for an additional margin that only pays the salary of local management. To prevent this you would have to ban companies from having foreign suppliers, which is not very practical.
And since countries know that's what would happen, they allow foreign subsidiaries to be regarded as separate entities even if they have shared ownership, instead of demanding the charade.
In absolute, I agree with you. But personally if I had to chose between tax evasion (permitted by those schemes) and having less multinational companies because it’d be more difficult… well, my country was doing pretty okay before multinationals and is not doing okay since every taxes are evaded.
Well Netflix is nice and all but I prefer social security and teachers in school.
Basically flat since the end of WWII, significantly lower before the war. At the height of the New Deal, less than half of what it is now. And that's in the face of significant growth in real GDP per capita. Probably not a dissimilar story in most other Western countries.
The problem isn't in the amount of taxes being collected, it's in where the money is going.
I don't think a warrant to search an office should let them use the keys they find there on a company truck five miles away, either. Despite being the same company. (If it's in the parking lot then it's a maybe.)
Not necessarily. Depending on how the org's set up, the system may be permissioned to access too much stuff. I think justice systems should lean less on a general warrant - too much of a fishing expedition - and instead focus on subpoenas specifically related to their area of investigation. E.g. if they seize the CEO's computer on accounting or tax concerns, I sincerely doubt they showed a judge probable cause to seize, I don't know, new product designs. As such they should not be able to access them.
The point you're making is valid, but also exposes a common theme in litigation against big tech. It's pretty common to hear something like "company XYZ used data ABC to train a model about their users and is court ordered to delete it". It's unlikely that anyone in the justice system has even the slightest clue how to ascertain if this actually happened and certainly no way to prove it has been deleted. The court gives the order, the company says they have complied, & everyone pretends to go back to the way things were before hand.
let me just extrapolate this out a bit for you. I live in the US (yes I visited France once long ago, it was nice). I use Uber. My phone is an Android phone running Uber's app.
Can a French prosecutor use Uber's systems to deliver a malicious payload to my phone to gather evidence? If so, is Uber required to assist them in this task?
Wasn't half of the concern with the arrest of Ross Ulbricht figuring when they could get him with his computer unlocked, without time to lock/wipe it? They'd have a pretty hard time proving destruction of evidence if 1. they didn't know for sure evidence was on that specific computer and 2. it was destroyed rather than just that the decryption key was removed from memory.
Regardless, the government violating an individual's rights doesn't mean we should yell at uber, it means we should yell at the government.
Yeah that doesn’t really shift my opinion lol If I activated a kill switch to wipe my local computers when the FBI entered my house I can’t even imagine the hell I’d reap, let alone that my data would be safe because it’s scattered on servers in other countries.
Also we can claim whatever we want but that doesn’t mean it’ll protect us in court.
Okay, and? I guess hating on uber is a popular sport. But to be clear, this was cutting off those computers from other uber systems. Systems that were not in those offices. Uber has no obligation to leave them logged in so some jumped-up eurotard can search not only its local files but its global ones too.
That sort of thing just makes sense from a security standpoint.
I don't know the laws of the specific countries, but I was making a statement that I don't think it's morally wrong. I don't personally care if it's legal or not and won't view uber differently based on those laws.
It’s actually very easy to import a raw peptide from china or wherever and reconstitute it without this happening. Lots of people do it all the time, and my guess is this is something particularly dumb like using plain water.
I agree though, more people should just import their own stuff.
This is insane. Just in case you’re not clear on how insane it is, your average roid monkey knows better than to reconstitute a peptide with something other than bac water. I imagine peptides are a little harder - bad temperature stability would make them hard to autoclave - but not “bits of likely mold floating around” hard.
For reference, I have some reconstituted peptide that’s been sitting on a shelf for ~6months at this point (honestly probably degraded) but no black stuff. These guys should be shut down and arguably charged with criminal negligence, because it’s simply so egregiously bad.
This isn't actually a very good attribution to specifically anthropogenic global warming. But it is a decent one to anthropogenic factors broadly. The metaphor of laying a fire is quite literal here: if global warming increases the number of sparks, that's actually the smaller piece of the problem. The bigger one is mismanagement of forest and ecological disruption leading to more and bigger fires laid for those sparks to catch.
My guess is there could be future impacts around the condition of forests that leads to susceptibility. Drought comes to mind as a serious risk. But a forest of dry trees is still a much harder environment for wildfires to form and spread than a forest of dry trees and no proper forestry to manage it.
Except there are people who are extremely good at passive-aggressively dragging their feet specifically such that it's hard to quantify. Metrics are entirely gameable and people know this. In development, this could be the guy who always somehow grabs the easy tickets then says "Hey I closed like 3 tickets yesterday I'm performing." Or he consistently overestimates his stuff - how much time should a busy manager spend assigning everyone's story points just in case they have to build a case to fire someone later?
There are also people who are technically performing but in practice but are jerks. And please don't start with "that's what HR is for" because I have never - not once - seen HR solve, or even significantly help, this sort of problem. Plus everybody hates dealing with them.
Just let people fire lousy workers man. This isn't that hard. Or, employees should push for employment contracts where the commitment is reciprocal: employers promise to keep them on for a few years and they promise to stay on for a few years.
...crazy that pro-labor has gone for "reasonable wages and hours please" to "there cannot possibly be a lazy employee." Sure, sometimes there's a lousy manager or exec. But honestly people aren't expected to be particularly "motivated" beyond salary, incentive pay, etc. Like what do you want, the kindergarten-style pizza party tactics? The cringey corporate slogans? Are those actually motivating anyone? There are garbage managers who de-motivate people but that's something of a different problem and hits the whole team rather than just one person. When there's a bad, lazy employee, or when there's that one guy who's just a jerk, fire him. Contracts that say you can't do that are dumb, and they are bad for the majority of workers.
Of course, I've also read a lot of garbage from those respectable outlets. A lot of slant and a lot of poorly-researched "journalism". This is basically a respectability politics problem; the NPR class is offended more that people have abandoned the trappings of "proper information" than over the information itself.
reply