People go on hikes in areas where there are multiple days between charging opportunities.
Hiking often also occurs in areas with bad or no coverage causing higher battery consumption with the phone trying to connect. If you don't mitigate this (with eg. turning off or enabling airplane mode) this will burn through battery much faster than the usual city dwelling.
A very tiny percentage of the population does that. Apple is not going to make the form factor of a device that sells ~100,000,000 units in 90 days to accommodate the 0.01% of people who take multiple day hikes.
Not relevant to the topic at hand. Perhaps I should write my manifesto here about socialist societies and their benefits. It would be relevant since I would mention Apple after all.
We do put additional editorial standards on news publications. This puts legal responsibility for the published content on the publisher.
It doesn't seem like that big a step to apply a similar standard to advertising platforms. Advertisers have failed to selfregulate the ads they choose to publish and it is infeasible to use the court system to judicate every false ad (that would be millions of court cases). Ergo you do the obvious which is to make the advertiser name a human editor who holds legal responsibility for published ads (on behalf of the company).
Now you can sue the advertising company (eg. Google) for millions of false advertisements at once.
Can you give examples of laws that put editorial standards on publishers? I am not familiar with any (I mostly know US stuff). A quick search only returned:
- Disclosure of Advertorial Content: U.S. law requires that if paid content is presented as editorial matter in a periodical, it must be clearly marked as an "advertisement".
- Prohibiting Harmful Content: Laws prohibit publishing content that is obscene, libelous, or scandalous.
- Copyright and Intellectual Property: Laws govern the exclusive rights of authors to their literary and artistic works, including the right to print, publish, and distribute them.
- Privacy Laws: Publishers must comply with laws protecting personal data and privacy.
- Online Platforms and Section 230: While not directly about publisher standards, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content, distinguishing them from publishers in this context.
I can't sue a publisher for running an ad that was libel. I sue the advertiser who created the libel.
I should have said liability, it would have been more precise, but I'd argue that liability is a form of responsibility so I don't think your correction is warranted.
You could create a law that says regional/national advertising requires a company or person be in that jurisdiction and that they must hold $$$ in bond as a guard against false claims.
This would prevent foreign ads targeting domestic users, and/or give you an organization to sue domestically. In this case, it's likely that the Israeli govt would work through a US based org, and that in court that case would likely fail for free speech rights. Though a case/org in another nation might not hold up under that nation's laws.
Or you could just hold the platforms liable for the advertising they host, and leave it up to the platforms to decide how best to weigh the trade-offs between that liability and their, to date, woefully underwhelming moderation.
The injured party... in the above case, the UNRWA would sue the org paying for the ads in the target location, for example the US org paying for the ads themselves in the US.
ok, call it theft of services. You used the service but blocked how the creator makes money on the service. Is it really different from someone who runs out of a barber or restaurant?
Yes, the restaurant is not tracking me across the city, and it does not contain malware (although I guess you could get food poisoning).
It would be amorale if these services were not exploiting everyone they can, including the creators.
The better analogy would be, is it okay to walk out on a barber who is spying on your phone, coughing in your face, and won't stop trying to convince you to buy his buddies shampoo or vote for their political party.
the restaurant spends resources (both physical and human) cooking and serving you the meal, likewise for the barber. a better example would be showing up late for a cinema showing so that you deliberately avoid watching the adverts and trailers... which i would guess most people would agree is morally fine?
The more direct cinema example would be sneaking into the theater and there were empty seats (so you did not deny anyone else access to the movie). Is that morally fine? You watched the movie, the creator doesn't get paid.
> the comparison to stealing really misses the mark
I know this always triggers a hard-coded response based on regex, but the comparison doesn't rely on the specifics of stealing, so it's not a valid criticism. The logic is: people offer things in exchange for a price. You can take the things in exchange for the price, or you can leave the things. You shouldn't take the things without paying the price.
Why? I truly believe I have no moral obligation to any of these entities and I see them as amoral organizations _at best_ who can't possibly reciprocate
But it's not the advertising company you're denying revenue from. It's the website you're visiting, who've chosen to pay for the content you're happy to take via advertising.
You do! In fact, I have a boxter and a 911, and I'm about to take out a mortgage for a Carerra GT. Why aren't you doing your part!? Are you gasp poor, or worse, lazy??? Am I going to have to report you to DepHomeSec?
It requires less political capital to repurpose an existing system than to introduce a new system for a specific purpose. See for instance the number of times Chat Control has failed to become law.
Reverse chronological + subscription (ie. the user must actively make a choice to follow some channel or creator to get them in their feed). This is how most platforms started, and while there were still issues (eg. rewarding frequent posting) they seemed a lot less problematic than what we have today.
The main issue isn't the misinformation or disinformation; it is how quickly you can amplify reach and reach millions. Reverse chronological + follows based on active user choice would largely address that issue.
People think that's what they want but they really don't. For most regular social media users if they haven't checked their feed recently they would rather see major life events (birth, death, marriage, graduation) prioritized first instead of a picture of someone's lunch.
Say you want to quit sugar or smoking. Would you still buy cigarettes or chocolate and carry it around in your pocket everywhere you go because you should rely on willpower to beat the addiction? Very few people do that because you become vulnerable when your willpower is at it's weakest.
Usually it works better to exercise willpower to constrain your future self's available actions. For example, by not buying chocolate or cigarettes when you are at the store.
The same principle applies to your phone. Use your willpower to constrain what your future self can do with it.
>Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach.
This already happens with every ad successfully shown to a person. Why don't you criticize the ad business for much more extensive overreach instead of someone doing harmless activism on their own website?
They have invested huge amounts in the AI bubble which they have to justify to shareholders and / or investors. The easiest way to do this is to integrate it into existing products which already exists so they can claim millions of daily active users.
Same reason Google has added AI summary to their most used product: search.
Hiking often also occurs in areas with bad or no coverage causing higher battery consumption with the phone trying to connect. If you don't mitigate this (with eg. turning off or enabling airplane mode) this will burn through battery much faster than the usual city dwelling.