1,838 karma · joined August 19, 2015
sudo spctl --master-disable
This is the lowest of low-hanging fruit.
Yes, it's whack-a-mole, but that will forever be the nature of the internet or any other tool that facilitates democratized content creation at effectively zero cost.
There have been a lot of anti-CDA 230 sob stories lately, which have indeed highlighted real victims of online content and abuse, but imposing liability on platforms simply destroys the free and open internet. Search engines would cease to exist if they became liable for simply indexing content created by others, and sites like Hacker News wouldn't be able to allow user submissions and comments.
We need to be careful to avoid victim-blaming, but equally important to recognize that very real harms to some people don't justify upending policies that have created enormous value for society as a whole.
Not to mention that, even without CDA 230, the majority of the problematic speech online would remain legal in the US because of the First Amendment.
Per the page you linked, as long as you verify your ID/location, are from one of the countries where the Ad Library has launched, and agree to the Facebook Platform Policy, you can get access.
Obviously, if apps are routing people down rail tracks, that's a big problem, but it doesn't seem to have been what happened here. Expecting developers to try to solve for every possible dumb human scenario doesn't end well.
In practice, the cost usually turns into around $0.37/mile, plus the daily rate, unless you have a corporate discount.
"This fee of $10 will be applied if you return your car to a different location from that which was scheduled, or if you return more than 12 hours after the date and time previously scheduled, and you notify us of an extension of your rental by the return date and time previously scheduled by calling 1-800-654-4174.
If you do not notify us of such a change, the Late Return Fee of $12 per day, (maximum of 5 days) will apply."
Better to ask forgiveness than permission.
For the vast majority of people—who are boring, non-activist, law-abiding citizens—the value they assign to privacy of things like name/face/products they're interested in is nonzero, but very low. They know their name/face, along with far more sensitive information, is already in a lot of databases that matter more than anything some random app developer can do, and they get some greater value from the marginal privacy impact of that same information ending up in one more place.
There's a good bit of research to support this. For example, there is a study showing you'd have to pay someone on average $1,000+ [1] to give up their Facebook account for year, suggesting that's the value they assign to the service. At the same time, if you ask them how much they'd be willing to pay for an ads-free, more privacy conscious version of Facebook, studies show only a small fraction would pay even $15/month [2]. In other words, people are making a conscious assessment that their privacy is less valuable than the services they can get by giving it up.
We make these kind of trade-offs and decisions every day. It's much the same reason people can be both deeply concerned about child labor in the Global South, but still make the decision to buy the cheaper version of a product rather than the one they know is ethically sourced, even if they could afford the latter. These decisions certainly have societal impacts that are worth contemplating and being concerned about, but it's wrong and infantilizing to simply dismiss people's conscious and rational (for them) choices.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17225328/facebook-ads-free-pai...
> "Calibra will do its part to facilitate the efficacy of international sanctions regimes. We will administer and enforce applicable sanctions programs including, for example, U.S., EU, and U.N. sanctions programs."
https://scontent.fbhx3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/65083631...
As a US citizen living in the US, even if the Chinese were to have every bit of my private data, they wouldn't really pose any threat to me as I'm not in their jurisdiction. The US, on the other hand, has a very real ability to use my data against me.
With very few exceptions (e.g. you are being explicitly targeted by a hostile nation-state for high-profile activities), surveillance by foreign governments will always pose less risk than surveillance by your own government.
That's intended to cover things like persecution solely for being a member of a political party.
Cramming extra family/friends into an apartment who aren't officially on the lease (e.g. the adult son who's lost a job or is on parole, or the parents who can't afford assisted living and are helping raise the grandkids) is actually far more common among low-income, rent-stabilized, and minority tenants. Stopping short-term Airbnb leases isn't particularly controversial; it's going after the medium/long-term unauthorized tenants that really has a disproportionate impact on the underprivileged.
Most landlords, in my experience, don't invest in the high-end RFID systems that have real security.
One of the many sorts of ubiquitous lease provisions that landlords are more than happy to turn a blind eye to for "desirable" market-rate tenants who pay on time each month, but will vigorously enforce against others.
I long ago realized that most big companies I do business with have probably done something sketchy in terms of lobbying / dodging regulation, whether they've gotten caught yet or not, and decided to stop losing sleep over it and just use the services that work best for me.
Compare that with T-Mobile, who offers $70 a month (including taxes/fees) with throttling at 50GB and 20GB of hotspot data for $15/mo more, or even AT&T or Verizon, and it's more expensive for less service.