Makes sense to me. If E2EE got banned, I could go download Free and Open Source applications from the internet that circumvent that ban. That's how it works on all of my computers right now, if Apple still demands override controls after letting you install third-party apps, then maybe we'll need a second Digital Market Act. I reckon we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
More likely, the EU will demand that alternative stores be regulated and that override controls exist, precisely so that they can outlaw E2EE and block other apps they want to restrict.
The EU isn’t doing any of this to support some principle of end-user freedom. It’s all just a consequence of lobbying and politics. They aren’t going to do anything that reduces their own control.
Doesn’t track with me. If the EU legislates the market they can legislate blocking those E2E apps from the internet. For instance, require apps to be installed from alternative marketplaces and not just sideloaded, and heavily regulate alternative marketplaces.
Of course he can. What makes a business have government approval is two things.
1. economic viability.
2. No visible opinion against China.
Your saying there's something else:
3. Visible support FOR China.
Number 3 is not required. You don't see Marvel movies and hollywood pandering to Chinas greatness do you? You only see an absense of dissent against China.
Here take a look at the clip. We all have the ability to judge tonality and the detail Elon puts into that statement to make the qualitative judgement call whether he's pandering or he believes in what he says:
Also one day I recommend you go to China and see what's going on there with your own eyes. It's like going to Yosemite half dome vs. looking at pictures of it. The difference between the US and China will floor you.
> What makes a business have government approval is two things
I see no evidence that you have the expertise to make this claim. It’s just an opinion you are stating as fact.
> We all have the ability to judge tonality and the detail Elon puts into that statement to make the qualitative judgement call whether he's pandering or he believes in what he says…
“In accuracy, judges range no more widely than would be expected by chance, and the best judges are no more accurate than a stochastic mechanism would produce. When judging deception, people differ less in ability than in the inclination to regard others' statements as truthful.”
So all this tells us is that you are someone who personally finds Elon credible. Given your own stated views of China, this seems like just confirmation bias.
>So all this tells us is that you are someone who personally finds Elon credible. Given your own stated views of China, this seems like just confirmation bias.
Could be. I'm asking you to watch that statement and judge for yourself. I don't believe or trust Elon utterly and completely. I'm not even close to being a huge fan. But from watching that statement I do both agree with him and believe he is being honest in that specific case.
>I see no evidence that you have the expertise to make this claim. It’s just an opinion you are stating as fact.
I'm Chinese by race. I'm born in the US, grew up in the US, lived in China for years.
But what I'm saying here is more common sense. Look at hollywood. There's a huge market in China for hollywood movies. So hollywood does pander to Chinas business requirements. What do you see in Hollywood movies? Do you see people fawning over the greatness of China? No. In hollywood you just see movies with complete absence of criticism against China. This is in stark contrast to the American media and cultural landscape which hollywood usually reflects accurately.
So just use your own eyes in all the movies you watch. Hollwood panders to China by not criticising china. They don't pander to China by praising China.
> But from watching that statement I do both agree with him and believe he is being honest in that specific case.
Yes, and the linked paper shows that this is a reflection of your existing bias about him, and not whether he is being truthful. It means that the clip of Elon tells us nothing at all about why he’s making the statement, even if judged by experts.
I don’t see how Hollywood is evidence of anything. They want their movies to have the widest audience possible, so their movie content is made as inoffensive as possible.
Elon’s cars are not movies.
For a counterexample, Tim Cook praises China, even as reports suggest that Apple and its shareholders are afraid of their dependence on China and are seeking to lessen it.
Elon has never behaved like Hollywood, and has a long history of saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. I see no reason to think that this is any different.
>Yes, and the linked paper shows that this is a reflection of your existing bias about him, and not whether he is being truthful. It means that the clip of Elon tells us nothing at all about why he’s making the statement, even if judged by experts.
Except I told you I'm not a fan of elon. I cited him because he's both vocal about his opinion in China. And unlike you both Elon and I have experience with China. You likely don't and have never even set foot in China.
>I don’t see how Hollywood is evidence of anything. They want their movies to have the widest audience possible, so their movie content is made as inoffensive as possible.
That's every business on the face of the earth. Even in the US they have to do that. So your own statement is basically destroying your point that Elon is pandering to China when he's just pandering to everyone. But here's the thing. In that statement he made, he said, he basically stated China is superior. So that would be pandering against the US. That's Bad for business in the US.
>Elon’s cars are not movies.
So? Both are business products sold for money. It's evidence of Chinas policy of only allowing products that don't criticize China. It's consistent and it's evidence. The statement I made was about products in general, not cars. So I can easily use movies to prove my point as movies are products. QED.
>For a counterexample, Tim Cook praises China, even as reports suggest that Apple and its shareholders are afraid of their dependence on China and are seeking to lessen it.
True but is Tim Cooks praise not real? I'd argue his praise is true AND he wants to lessen dependence on China. You shouldn't view China as a single negative entity. They are superior to the US in many ways both from a moral perspective and a technological perspective. From the otherside of the coin, the US is also superior to China in many ways both from a technological standpoint and moral standpoint.
The problem with bias is that you can't see this until someone brings it up. You used Tim Cook as an example but at the time of stating that example you couldn't even consider the possibility that Tim Cook could both praise China truthfully and want to sever their dependence on China. These two concepts are orthogonal. That is unless you're biased and can only view China as something that is either black or white.
>Elon has never behaved like Hollywood, and has a long history of saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. I see no reason to think that this is any different.
What he said in that link I posted is what Americans don't want to hear. What person in the US wants to hear "There are more smart, hardworking people in China then there are in the US." ? Nobody wants to hear that. He's speaking to an English audience and saying things people don't want to hear.
This is evidence for the fact that he's saying what he believes is true.
I see nothing combative here, and nobody is forcing you to write replies you don’t want to. I disagree that simply making a naked claim is ‘reasoning’.
“The moon is made of cheese.” is a statement, but isn’t reasoning.
>I see nothing combative here, and nobody is forcing you to write replies you don’t want to. I disagree that simply making a naked claim is ‘reasoning’.
This is false. Read what you wrote:
>Actually you didn't provide any reasoning. You just made a statement without any supporting logic.
This is just rude. And you know it. You're just trolling now. I literally said not to post book links and you just did.
I'm ending this thread. I don't appreciate statements like this.
> They should have been drafting absurd standards centered around their own servers, and taunting Google into adopting it.
It's hard to imaging you sincerely think this would have been better. It seems like you want them to engage in dishonesty.
> But instead they played high and mighty, and now they have to contend with the law.
iMessage isn't going anywhere. They're just going to add RCS support in the same way that SMS is supported, because now there is momementum for carrier support. This is really a storm in a teacup.
> open it up to let other people run their own servers instead of trying to control everything.
If you know of a good open architecture that solves the problems of spam and impersonation while maintaining the convenience and ease of use necessary for mass adoption, please share it.
I could get my parents who are nearing their 70s to use Element (Matrix) and it took them less than 10 minutes, even with me asking them to register to a non-default homeserver.
Screw "convenience". It's a poison pill. "Convenience" should never be put above "resilience" (not to mention "freedom") in a value scale. The American obsession with "convenience" is turning us all into cattle and it's getting harder and harder to get the rest of society to function without being controlled by some corporate overlord.
With all due respect, it seems that you have conceded that a convenient, spam free, open option not only doesn’t exist in practice, but can’t in principle.
That’s more than even I believe. I just think nobody in the OSS space has put the work in to figure it out yet.
> I could get my parents who are nearing their 70s to use Element (Matrix) and it took them less than 10 minutes, even with me asking them to register to a non-default homeserver.
Well in that case Element would be the solution we’re looking for, except that not everyone’s parents have someone like you to help them.
And as for the desire for convenience, it’s hard to imagine you seriously believe that only Americans value convenience over resilience. If that were true, the rest of the world would be using Element rather than WhatsApp.
Simply railing against people’s needs doesn’t change them.
No, you got me wrong. I think that Matrix is convenient enough to be practical, and I think that the issue is that we keep holding it back because we keep waiting for "someone else in the OSS space to put in the work" to make it as convenient as the leading closed alternatives, which is a fool's errand.
> Well in that case Element would be the solution we’re looking for, except that not everyone’s parents have someone like you to help them.
Yet they manage just fine to get a sales rep from Best Buy to help them setup FaceTime on their shiny iPhones that they get to buy every two years. Why can't that Best Buy rep be trained to setup Element instead?
It can in principle, but not in practice. To become something attainable in practice we would have to start supporting the companies that are focused on the more important things first until they are mature enough to be able to dedicate time and resources to optimize for convenience. The problem is that when we prize convenience above other things and we end up with stupid things like customers arguing about the color of their speech bubbles.
> To become something attainable in practice we would have to start supporting the companies that are focused on the more important things first until they are mature enough to be able to dedicate time and resources to optimize for convenience.
What happened to open source?
> The problem is that when we prize convenience above other things and we end up with stupid things like customers arguing about the color of their speech bubbles.
That’s a fair point, in that if consumers prioritized open infrastructure over convenience, a commercial enterprise would too. However this is back to the earlier point - there is no point railing about that. It’s just a fact that most people want to just buy the nicest thing they can with their money.
Open source is not magic fairy dust that can solve everything. You still need funding for developers, you still need to acquire customers to provide a feedback cycle, you still need device makers making it easy to install your app, etc.
No. Signal has the funding, the technical talent and the customers. They are as "open source" as it can be. The issue with them is that they want to control the platform.
> You act as if control has no value to their mission.
What is their mission, exactly? Why does it require one single entity as the single pipeline for all global communications?
How many times will we have to go through the same cycle of building centralized Leviathans and see them turning against us, to understand that this is the Road to Hell?
It was the offical act of a country that still exists.
Britain took out a loan to repay British slaveowners for the cost of their slaves when slavery was revoked .. that loan was repaid for more than a century and only recently closed out.
The responsibilities of an institution outlive the lives of the people that staff it.
The UK is no longer a wealthy country by European standards - its dead last in GDP per capita in northern Europe (The UK ranks Number 17 in GDP per capita in Europe) - basically whatever benefits the UK gained from Empire was consumed by two almost incalculably costly world wars - whatever was not blown up in Flanders Fields, was bombed flat by the Germans 25 years later.
Beyond that the costs of maintaining the few remaining trapping of empire today are a sizable drag on the UK economy.
You need to give more info about what the actual problems are. Without knowing that, people can only offer advice based on stereotypes, which are often innaccurate.
Honestly, if the poster is serious about being a professional manager and wants good advice on this, they should reach out to a professional organization that provides resources e.g.:
This makes no sense. If Europe makes rules about backdoors or outlawing E2E, they will apply to every app store and every app, not just Apple.