(Not arguing with you, just with the concept of the bill)

Doesn’t the news outlet benefit from the traffic and clicks generated from that user engagement?

What’s the government’s rationale for social media platforms to subsidize media outlets monetarily in addition to driving people to their content?

Yeah, I am not Canadian so I’m sure there’s some information/nuance I don’t understand here, but from what I can tell from looking at a few articles from different sources:

• Canadian government passes a law that would require Facebook to pay and/or share ad revenue for every link out (posted by the media outlet, not by Facebook) to an external news website

• Facebook says they don’t want to do that, and will stop showing news links to comply with the law

• Canadian government says “no not like that” and now wants to force them to allow links to news outlets, which de facto forces them to pay/share revenue with those media outlets

Like I said, I’m assuming there may be something I’m missing here, so please any kind Canadians who can help fill in the blanks would be appreciated

It’s because the proposed changes would give the UK government de-facto authority to dictate how security and encryption are implemented.

…a provision that would give the UK government oversight of security changes to its products, including regular iOS software updates. The Home Office consultation proposes “mandating” operators to notify the home secretary of changes to a service that could have a “negative impact on investigatory powers”.

It would mean in practice that the UK would dictate how Apple employs encryption around the globe, unless Apple was willing to fork their software and build/maintain a UK-only branch for their products.

Which still wouldn’t solve the issue because if you interacted with someone over any of those protocols who was in the UK, your messages and data would be accessible by the UK government, regardless of the other party’s location.

I’m with Apple on this. This isn’t a consumer-focused piece of legislation for repairability/interoperability like some of the newer EU legislation, this is a government trying to ensure they have the technical ability to spy on their citizens and others. It’s the definition of anti-consumer.

Super shitty response to the question you still haven’t given an answer to, after I reiterated again what my understanding of the “so obvious” point was.

Whatever you want dude, happy to block you.

If it’s so obvious why can’t you state it clearly?

It seems like the insinuation is that Threads is artificially inflating user counts with “shadow accounts” that aren’t real - however it’s been clearly determined that they aren’t.

So, if it’s not that, then, again… what’s the “so obvious” point I’m missing?

Threads only shows users who have signed in to Threads. If you mention an Instagram user in a Threads post that has not signed in to Threads prior, the mention is removed because it’s not a valid handle.

I urge you to read through the link in the original post to the Mastodon user who originally made this claim, where you’ll find plenty of people more eloquent than me explaining why this is inaccurate.

But the point you’re making isn’t clear which is why I asked if you could clarify - what is the point you’re making?

What is Meta doing here? I’m not clear on what the point being made is.

If you’re insinuating that they are doing this to artificially inflate user counts, why wouldn’t they be reporting about how there are 2+ billion threads users in the first week?

They don’t need to manufacture hype - like Meta or not, in the first 96 hours they brought in almost 100 million users. Thats a third of Twitter’s entire active user base, in less than a week.

I too understand where you’re coming from, but I think it’s an important distinction, not semantics.

If Meta was simply creating a duplicitous profile for every Instagram user, that would be pretty predatory and misleading.

However, if that were the case, they would also be bragging about having 2+ billion Threads “users”.

It also implies that users could interact with these “shadow accounts” even if that person never used Threads, which is not the case.

As it currently works, if you try to mention a user who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, nothing happens, the mention is stripped because it’s not a valid handle.

It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.

This is akin to saying Google Calendar is “forced” on you if you have a Gmail account. They are separate services that use a common credential, you are under no obligation to use any or all of those services.

It’s probably even more simple than that - a single DB with a flag for threads_enabled = true/false.

They made it super clear in advance this is how it would work, the app is called “Threads, an Instagram app”, but as always people froth at the mouth for any opportunity to say “Zuckerberg bad”.

That’s not some big secret. Everyone knows meta sucks. We don’t need to make stuff up to prove that. They do that on their own.

There’s plenty of things to hate Meta for, but this is inaccurate.

You log into Threads with your Instagram account. There’s no “shadow account”, you’re logging into a second service with the same account and credentials.

Your ticket entitles you to a seat, even if you don’t pick it yourself. You’ll just likely get stuck with a less desirable seat like a middle seat.

You’re witnessing the birth of a meme, friend

ka chow

I’m here for beans

oh good my weekly bean delivery is here

absolute fucking classic

I think you may want to talk to Verizon and make sure you’re clear on network requirements before you buy a new phone - Verizon shut down the remainder of their CDMA network on December 31, 2022.

Furthermore, Verizon supports LTE and 5G-NR which are GSM technologies, so any modern unlocked phone should work without issues.

What carrier?