Probably, but it would depend on how much gross revenue they make on said practice, and how often they get a fine.

Seem much smarter and humane to redistribute the resources, and direct most of those resources to find resource efficient processes.

I tend to agree but you could argue that from a perspective in the center of the rotation you’re turning to the right. Imagine standing in the center of those arrows.

If there is money to be made those companies would make deals for data/ad-space, it’s just that they will do it in competition with other ad services and search services for example. That’s how a healthy market works, no? (Aside from the problematic data brokerage which is another issue)

And if they can’t survive that, then the business should probably not exist.

In that sense you could argue the market is “hurt” but I think consumers will benefit in the long run when competition can thrive, and monopolies do not exist.

Then the search company buy the ad service from the ad company, as all other search engines can then do as well. Isn’t that the point of breaking up a big company?

I’m a layman, but how is that harming the market?

So you browse the web without css? Now that’s old school!

I find it kind of funny that your shared link url contain tracking parameters.

Why should we give advertisers any data at all, I don’t get it? I agree it’s better than how tracking is being done today, but why create a tool to distribute information about my behavior across different sites (yes, anonymized)?

Yeah, strange design choice since the other buttons in theUI are not pill shaped.

Aside from that things look very nice.

You’re right, and went back to read again and I totally misread the original article on Pivot to Asia as being more positive to china, which it wasn’t. I apologize for that, and thanks for still keeping up the conversation. I owe you to at least have a look at your last reference.

Just trying to keep up with what message you’re trying to convey. First you said it started during the Obama administration, then you agreed it was later, during the trump administration.

I don’t have time to check even more sources you reference. Feel free to mention why your last source is relevant to our discussion and I might give it a glance. Or at least why it worth a read.

So, based on your source, it’s Trump policy rather than Obama policy?

That sounds like the opposite. In the article they mention changing the policy in 2017. Is that what you mean?

I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you aren’t)

The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary “I was offended” type of offenses.

I don’t think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.

Yeah, fair, definition can be hard. But to give an example that I think is pretty clear cut: people standing outside of a mosque/synagogue/church arguing that those [certain people] deserve to be dead or put in labor camp.

You could argue that those are just words, and be correct, but for the individuals that are targeted it’s not just words. They know for a fact that those words and ideologies do turn in to actions.

I think it’s easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech.

Ah, yeah, that’s a fair criticism. Thanks.

But hate speech is never good, is it?

Is that a thing?

Have you tried discussing this with ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity? I’ve found it extremely helpful for getting started, and exploring different options.

Why is that?