circuitfarmer

This is one effect of a general lack of real consequences for corporations and those that run them.

The company has already determined their likely fine after being caught doing something egregious. The profit from being early to market is significant, and so long as it is considerably higher than the likely fine, they go for it. The expected real earnings are the difference between the profit and the fine. It’s all made worse since so often the fine is absolutely nothing compared to the profit, since the numbers these companies are dealing with are so damn big.

This is why you won’t see real change until we stop slapping corporations with fines and start slapping executives with jail time. That is literally the only way to break the cycle.

“Ooh rah”

The amount of corporate control that has slowly and insidiously crept into our lives will never cease to amaze me.

The controller, yes. The display itself, no, as far as I can tell.

That brings it outside of the reasonable range for most people, I would think.

Am I right in suggesting that e-ink displays remain artificially overpriced because of the company that ultimately owns the patent?

I post this in offering to the internet gods, that this may be the first step which leads to an actually meaningful change.

Yeah. It seems obvious when looked at from a design standpoint. They have shifted the product into a different space.

Windows 11?

I’ve seen them in the start menu, and in the bloat installed without consent, and in the emails to the mandatory Microsoft account.

Edit: not sure why the downvote, unless you have some evidence that MS doesn’t push ads via those channels.

It’s important to differentiate advertising from sharing information, generally. SponsorBlock is not a corporate product, so mentioning it is not an ad. If the idea is not to share information, then the entire internet should be avoided, but advertisements specifically are aimed at some party making money.

I do actively try and avoid ads wherever possible, mostly through the use of open-source approaches. I don’t have them on my phone because of heavy modification (except technically robocalls). I don’t have any on my desktop rigs because of a complete reliance on Linux. I get some on my work machine, which is a Mac, but I went with that because IT gave me two choices and Linux wasn’t one of them. I know I’d have more had I gone Windows.

I don’t watch traditional television, but there aren’t many ways to consume corporate content without also consuming ads. I think that is a thread that ties a lot of this together. Basically, if you want to consume corporate content, you have to concede to watching advertising in some capacity, and that is by design.

I would argue that we should be able to avoid it in life generally (e.g. billboards and such, which are a constant annoyance), but aside from that, I always see ads as a tradeoff that I have no option to avoid if I want to consume certain content.

Edit:

Basically, if you want to consume corporate content, you have to concede to watching advertising in some capacity

*if you want to consume corporate content legally

People have been used to a lot of private services for a while now. YouTube is so ubiquitous it’s almost like a utility, in that everyone always has access to it and it’s just everywhere, with no real competitor.

But all of these social media services are private, so as much as they feel like public information utilities, once you’re on one, your data isn’t your own. I think that’s the disconnect when people hear that “their data” has been used for AI training. It ceased to be their data as soon as it went on the platform, at least tacitly in the US.

There has traditionally been a public expectation of control that simply isn’t there for any of these services. The industry knows this and capitalizes on it regularly. It’s a key tenet of technofeudalism.

Shocked, I tell you.

Fuck this channel.

Fallacious question. In real life there can be no good options. That doesn’t mean we should support one for being less bad.

Seems to be that way. I agree with your insinuation that “they aren’t trying to sell as many ads as Google and Facebook – yet”. I don’t see any special ethics beyond keeping their brand loyalty afloat.

Exactly. Not sure why it would be on me for refuting a statement.

Apple doesn’t rely on selling or advertising your data as a business segment.

That was a claim offered without evidence.

Hey there ya go! Providing a source for the argument you made first! Thanks.

So you don’t have a source either? ;)

Because Apple doesn’t rely on selling or advertising your data as a business segment.

I find this very hard to believe.

To my knowledge, that isn’t a consistent pattern (someone please correct if wrong).

Personally I have focused on fast SSD storage and utilized the vast, cheap, slow storage available with mechanical drives for backup.

At the end of the day, if an SSD fails, you’re effectively just screwed. If a mechanical drive fails, there is some possibility that the data is recoverable. But moreover, mechanical storage is so cheap by volume that you can just have redundant backup and never worry about it, really.