palmfacehn

I always found it strange that I needed to:

1) Provide a phone number

2) Install a mobile app

3) Activate Google Play Services

...All to create an account for this "private" messaging service. After which I needed to disable location sharing and public display of a phone number I used. A recent change now gives the country of the sim I used when registering if I DM someone new.

Other than that, his message does speak to valid concerns. However, I'm not sure why Telegram needed so much personal data for sending private messages.

Even more so when it is a summary.

I don't think it is that extreme. The problem with the poster's assertion is that one individual's "free-market" as the poster defines it, is another's state capitalism.

If the above poster feels that there is a pragmatic need for regulation, fine. However the underlying principles of laissez-faire remain clearly defined. By appealing to a pragmatic need for regulation, the poster opens the door for centralized capture of the market. Long term this trend creates malign incentives.

Historically those who couldn't achieve monopoly conditions by appealing to consumers on the market, used the power of the state instead. So there's a mixed bag at best here. Others contend that the truly toxic monopolies are created exclusively by this process. You can take you pick, we're free to disagree here, but denying the hazards of the regulatory state would be unreasonable. Maybe that's an acceptable trade off and I think that's a fair discussion.

However, all of that is a far way off from an appeal to special circumstances, "because AI", "markets bad" and therefore neo-luddite doom. It isn't something we have observed with other tech innovations, nor is it grounded in axiomatic reasoning.

It isn't necessarily a mistake if you can scare people into clicking, or perhaps granting you special regulatory privileges. It may be unethical.

The poster provided an example of poor abstraction. HTML for display, JS for client side logic. Combining them is part of the problem with other popular frameworks.

More than 90% of the comments are partisan attacks on Trump. I'm happy for her win, but the topic doesn't stimulate a high quality discussion.

Yes, many partisans are asserting that it is unprecedented. The selective omissions advance their narrative. They are acting in self-interest. The out-party hate is downstream and symptomatic.

A less partisan view might find that it the actions of the political classes are not unprecedented. It is a progression of the form. Both poles represent false alternatives in this regard. The malign incentives are systemic.

410 removed