dzikimarian

Meta profiled for vulnerable, low self-esteem minors (eg by monitoring added and quickly removed photos). It was used by advisers to push ads for beauty & lifestyle products feeding on depressed teenagers. Booze is non issue compared to that.

Care to explain? As someone who is living way too close to Russia I would be very interested to hear how CNN impacted my opinions...

Most of it behind cgnat. I had to ask isp to disable ipv6 to get incoming traffic at all.

Why should I recognize that as valid interest, when it's straight out hostile to me? I know why they are doing that. It doesn't oblige me to accommodate their selfish interests.

What if they use this data to target kids in your family in their vulnerable moments, like they did in the past?

Have you actually looked at one?

I opened Google News. First site I've seen is t3.com - some review of pebble wearable.

I was greeted by cookie dialog. I clicked "more info" -> "partners" -> "legitimate interest".

131 vendors, including among other "Adform - agentic advertising" who wishes to store laundry list of my data for 10 years.

That's different setting.

Typical "legitimate interest" section is about sharing data with 40 "trusted partners".

It's working way better than original client. What does it say about Spotify devs?

Because it currently has best support for their stack. Being tech-savvy means also you understand, you can't move entire plugin ecosystem of vsc to notepad++ and call it reasonable.

They don't work fine. I run lot's of TUIs because they are snappier. You may bury this problem with money buying 64gb laptop, but that facade falls as soon as you launch local LLM and discover there's no space left for Spotify.

Obviously Meta as social network has more opportunities to show "evilness". But also it has more opportunities to show good side.

And yes in the end it's always people. What makes a difference is that some of those people sit on the Meta's board and they consistently show, they aren't humanity's finest. To the point, where I don't think any technological stunt can make up for harm they're doing, therefore making their existence net negative for humans.

Of course one can argue on cynical/real-politik level something like Meta was unavoidable due to "how the world works", but that doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism, as honest public discourse is one of the ways to push Overton window.

Happy to see appreciation on your part :-)

Google and Apple while far from saint weren't caught multiple times directly monetizing violence, political polarization or vulnerable minors and directly lying about what they do.

What I'm arguing is that if Meta ceased to exist some years ago, there would be less bludgeoning to film to begin with, as social media-driven hate is source for a lot of them.

In the EU you also cannot just get a token to open banking.

It doesn't. There was a plan, but Microsoft abandoned it.

You're dealing with the same objection, because, in the thread about Meta glasses, you're trying to argue about smart glasses in the vacuum.

Is easy access to private camera positive for people disadvantaged against the system? Likely yes.

Would the benefits be largely eclipsed by negative impact like perpetuating violence, depression and polarization if Meta is main vendor? Also yes, because they are careless enough to extract private data and offer it to people benefiting from vulnerable individuals.

Hardly surprising your comments are discussed in context of Meta if you comment in thread about Meta.