Greg's recent activity

  1. Comment on Twenty years of digital life, gone in an instant, thanks to Apple in ~tech

    Greg
    Link Parent
    I have everything synced to local NAS with point in time local snapshots and encrypted replication to an offsite S3-compatible bucket, and I still worry about losing the things that I can't...

    I have everything synced to local NAS with point in time local snapshots and encrypted replication to an offsite S3-compatible bucket, and I still worry about losing the things that I can't properly secure for myself because they're account based and/or infested with DRM.

    Things like Apple IDs, Google accounts, Steam libraries, are easily up there with credit cards and government documents in terms of cost and importance, but if something goes wrong there's a good chance you'll end up talking to a wall.

    2 votes

  2. Comment on Amazon to allow EPUB and PDF downloads of DRM-free Kindle titles in ~books

    Greg
    Link Parent
    They definitely aren't changing the DRM status on anything, but they also aren't enabling the new download formats on previously uploaded DRM free books, which is the somewhat odd part. Equally,...

    They definitely aren't changing the DRM status on anything, but they also aren't enabling the new download formats on previously uploaded DRM free books, which is the somewhat odd part.

    Equally, this seems like a pretty minor feature change in the first place, at least to me. If a book was already DRM free, the flow would've been download->right click->convert to ePub, now it's just "download as ePub". It's a small nice to have, sure, but it doesn't seem like an actual policy shift or even a meaningful change in usability - I can't imagine the number of people who choose to use an ePub-only, non-Kindle device but don't know how to format shift DRM free content is particularly large.

    1 vote

  3. Comment on Twenty years of digital life, gone in an instant, thanks to Apple in ~tech

    Greg
    Link
    I really wish the author hadn't mentioned the bit about the 6TB of data! The whole situation is awful, but that part distracts from the real point - at least among the kind of audience who is...
    • Exemplary

    I really wish the author hadn't mentioned the bit about the 6TB of data! The whole situation is awful, but that part distracts from the real point - at least among the kind of audience who is going to care about this at all.

    Leaving your only copy of whatever data in the hands of a corporation is like leaving a backpack on the seat of a parked car: you should be able to assume it's safe, you're not the one who bears the fault if something does happen to it, but we ultimately do live in a world where thieves break car windows and corporations lose/lock away your data. The victim isn't at fault, but the fact they could probably have foreseen and mitigated the issue ends up taking focus in the conversation.

    Skip that part - not in a misleading way, just in a hypothetical world where they don't care about the lost data, or where they did have a backup on a USB drive - and the story is still just as bad. They've lost access to their developer account - something that's outright necessary for their job specifically because of Apple's walled garden - and they're being given no recourse to follow up. They've lost access to iMessage, which could well have been a primary means of communication. They've lost significant workflow and UX features on their devices; they may even be unable to sell or service the hardware, since it'll be linked to an account that they can no longer access and release it from.

    They're stuck in this Kafka-meets-Neal-Stephenson situation through no fault of their own, with no recourse except signal boosting the story enough that it catches the eye of someone with the power to make real human decisions rather than just following a generic script, and the most serious consequences were unavoidable*. All because companies have decided that even deflecting 99% of customer service requests with a generic, semi-automated non-answer wasn't enough: the cost of an escalation team to make actual judgment calls in that remaining 1% apparently isn't worth it either, so anything that falls outside the lines like this just goes into an eternal, unsolvable loop.

    This isn't inevitable. This isn't necessary. This isn't something that a person living a normal life can reasonably protect themselves from. And this is exactly what laws and regulations are supposed to be created for: providing recourse to people harmed through no fault of their own, and pre-emptively limiting the likely harm from entities that concentrate significant power over communications, finance, business, employment, and so on.

    *OK, the author could have chosen not to work on Apple software at all, 15 years earlier into their career. And convinced all of their family, friends, and professional contacts to use a different communication method. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that forcing Apple to have a regulated process to resolve issues like this is probably the more reasonable ask.

    30 votes

  4. Comment on UK and Denmark are demanding overhaul of European immigration laws – Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen argue populists will continue to gain ground if something isn't done soon in ~society

    Greg
    Link Parent
    Not in response to that, but in response to this:

    in response to me saying that immigration issues are very real

    Not in response to that, but in response to this:

    If the moderates don't provide solutions, populists and extremists will

    1 vote

  5. Comment on UK and Denmark are demanding overhaul of European immigration laws – Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen argue populists will continue to gain ground if something isn't done soon in ~society

    Greg
    Link Parent
    The thing you've said that I agree with here is that solutions in the eyes of the electorate are what matters! My real worry, the thing I've really been trying to communicate in all of this - and...

    The thing you've said that I agree with here is that solutions in the eyes of the electorate are what matters! My real worry, the thing I've really been trying to communicate in all of this - and apparently not doing a great job of getting across - is that the policies presented by the far right aren't real, even in situations where problems may be real, and that the electorate treating those talking points as if they're actual solutions is the most dangerous outcome here.

    Trump was never going to "drain the swamp", Farage was never going to give £350m/week extra to the NHS, and Musk was never going to improve government efficiency. And yes, those are examples from outside mainland Europe, because they're examples of where the bad outcome has already happened. They're examples not specific to immigration, because my whole concern is about the prevalence of bad faith rhetoric from populist/extremist/far right parties who make false promises on whatever wedge issue they believe will get them the votes. And they're relevant because the same tactics and talking points, by politicians who move in the same circles, attend the same conferences, and listen to the same think tanks, are being used across the world with the goal of furthering the same interests.

    I'm incredibly sensitive to the rhetoric because I genuinely think the biggest risk is to accept the premise that it's a dichotomy between "shitty status quo" and "imperfect, extreme solution" when it's actually between "shitty status quo" and "much worse outcome, falsely presented as if it's a solution" - and again, I'm not even really looking at this through the lens of immigration, I'm looking at it through the lens of political extremism that happens to be hiding behind immigration as a talking point. The populists win if people believe them, because they're willing to say whatever they think the people want to hear. So to me, the most important thing is to be crystal clear that their words are hollow and they will not improve things in any of the ways they claim; once that's firmly understood by the voters, then we can discuss actual approaches to the things the far right were falsely promising to do, and agree or disagree on policy in good faith.

    There's a lot I'd still like to say, and quite a bit that bothers me in the whole conversation above that I kind of want to address, but I don't think I'll help either of us by diving into more point by point back and forth. I hope I've at least made what I'm thinking clear, and perhaps even found a sliver of common ground on one or two points - either way I'm going to draw a line under it now and leave the topic there.

    3 votes

  6. Comment on UK and Denmark are demanding overhaul of European immigration laws – Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen argue populists will continue to gain ground if something isn't done soon in ~society

    Greg
    Link Parent
    The myth is that they will provide solutions to the problems they are claiming they'll solve. Sometimes the myth is that the problems exist at all in the form they stated. Compromising to vote...

    The myth is that they will provide solutions to the problems they are claiming they'll solve. Sometimes the myth is that the problems exist at all in the form they stated. Compromising to vote with a party you may only partially agree with is democracy, yes, but the problem arises when people vote on fabricated issues (and before you jump on me for that wording, I'm not saying all issues around immigration are fabricated, I'm saying that the majority of the far right talking points around immigration are fabricated or distorted to the point of being untrue), or vote on fabricated solutions to real issues.

    Compromising because "it's important to address <whatever issue>" is based on the myth that the extremists will address <whatever issue> (and, perhaps even more importantly, will address <implied consequence of whatever issue>), when decade upon decade of evidence suggests that simply isn't going to happen.

    What is your point exactly? That extremists or conservatives are incapable of providing solutions? Of course they are, they might be ineffective or you might dislike them, but they are solutions.

    Sometimes incapable, sometimes unwilling or uncaring. Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other on a subtlety of meaning here: to me, if it's ineffective, it's not a solution. Solution implies that the problem gets solved - a failed attempt, and especially an attempt made in bad faith that never could have succeeded, is not a solution. That's the point I'm making: that they're providing targeted lies, not actual solutions.

    At some point extreme and ineffective solutions are better than doing nothing, which is why populism is a thing in the first place.

    This concerns me - it sounds like you were implying a measure of success when you used the word "solution", because if you weren't that statement just makes absolutely no sense to me. Burning your house down is an extreme and ineffective way to get rid of a furniture layout you dislike, and that's far, far worse than doing nothing.

    Just look at the US right now - a ton of things were going badly, and the Democrats were failing to fix them: voting in a Democrat again would have been "doing nothing", more or less, and most of those problems likely would have continued. Instead, the extreme and ineffective choice ended up in power and now things are far, far worse than they were before for almost everybody.

    Genuinely where does this even come from?

    Large quantities of documentary evidence:

    Choosing those links because they're the two political systems I have the most direct experience with. There are many, many more examples.

    As for the rest of that paragraph, I have no way of knowing whether you're being realistic and talking in good faith because I have no idea where you're located and what police reports you're suggesting I look up. I'll openly say I'm skeptical, given the lack of identifiable detail and the fact that I've seen exactly that kind of thing said about places I've lived, with it being somewhere on the spectrum from wildly exaggerated to outright made up in those cases I do have personal experience with. If it is accurate I've also said, multiple times, that if there are genuine issues they should be addressed - but given that a huge amount of far right rhetoric is demonstrably false, we need to address any issues that actually exist, and address them in proportion to their actual impact.

    And your response is to... tell me that some actual issues exist? I genuinely don't understand why you seem to object to me saying "the far right are lying about the issue, we need leaders who will address reality, whatever that reality may be, without legitimising the propaganda".

    That's not at all what I said.

    As far as I'm concerned, the phrases "pretending that it is an unequivocal and universal good" and "being a bit too optimistic about immigration" are genuinely synonymous. I'll put my hands up and admit that my version uses softer wording, and perhaps that changes the tone in a way you wouldn't have used - if so, I apologise - but they really do mean the same thing by my reading.

    I will repeat, it is pretending that it is an unequivocal and universal good, that anyone who has a problem with it is a xenophobic racist moron who fell for the Russian propaganda, and proposing 0 solutions for the issues that arise.

    I hope for and expect better on this site. I raised some serious, legitimate, well documented factors that are driving the rise of the far right (by far the most significant of which is that misplaced fear and anger over economic insecurity), to challenge the idea that an overly optimistic view on immigration is the primary contributor (or an unrealistic view, or an unequivocally good one, or whatever wording you would prefer - I'm honestly not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just speaking in my own voice here). And you're just throwing them back as if I used thoughtless insults, and as if my doing so is part of the problem.

    I get it, it's a tough one to discuss. Honestly, my emotions are a bit higher than I'd like about it too and I'm probably not keeping the tone quite as measured as I'd usually like to - I apologise for that. But when we're somewhere that it's at least possible to have a real conversation, with real people, on difficult topics, surely it's better that we try to do so than to just caricature the topics I raised and then act as if they're the real problem?

    4 votes

  7. Comment on UK and Denmark are demanding overhaul of European immigration laws – Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen argue populists will continue to gain ground if something isn't done soon in ~society

    Greg
    Link Parent
    But... they won't. They'll use it as a wedge issue to drive their agenda, they won't actually solve any of the underlying concerns. I think that's an incredibly important distinction, because...

    If the moderates don't provide solutions, populists and extremists will

    But... they won't. They'll use it as a wedge issue to drive their agenda, they won't actually solve any of the underlying concerns. I think that's an incredibly important distinction, because extremist parties rely on people swallowing the whole "oh, well I don't agree with everything they say, but I do think it's important to address <whatever issue>" myth so that they can appeal to less extreme segments of the population.

    It's like the utterly disproven "conservatives are better for the economy" lie that somehow keeps being repeated year after year. Saying that people are turning to the populist parties because they present a solution is like saying they're turning to the populist parties because they'll get a yacht, a gold bar, and a pet unicorn - it's transparently untrue, and repeating the lie is reinforcing it.

    As I also said, immigration is bad. For some. And good for others.

    Which is why we need leadership with the ability to distinguish genuine issues from broad stroke "immigration bad" bullshit in the wider conversation. It's one thing to address actual, reasonable concerns in a way that's truthful and proportionate to their impact; it's quite another to legitimise the one dimensional narrative pushed by the far right by acting as if their monotone "immigration bad" rhetoric is accurate or made in good faith. That was the whole paragraph I wrote - not a single word about pretending anything is a universal unvarnished good, but a lot of words about addressing the situation confidently and accurately rather than legitimising the bullshit. A call for nuance and accuracy.

    I would argue that pretending that immigration is an unequivocal and universal good is the main cause of the rise of right wing extremism, at least in Europe.

    Really? It's not the propaganda networks? It's not the centralised, agenda driven media? It's not the misdirected anger over rapidly growing economic inequality? It's not the fabricated culture wars? It's not the destabilising effect of Russian agitation?

    The most important part in the rise of the far right is actually just some people being a bit too optimistic about immigration?

    6 votes

  8. Comment on Immigrants ‘plucked out of line’ at US citizenship oath ceremony at Faneuil Hall, group says in ~society

    Greg
    Link Parent
    That sounds like it'd be one of those fascinating test cases that gets taught in future law schools, with all the nuances about whether saying the words, or showing the intent, or someone stamping...

    That sounds like it'd be one of those fascinating test cases that gets taught in future law schools, with all the nuances about whether saying the words, or showing the intent, or someone stamping the paperwork, or whatever else is actually the moment that the citizenship takes effect. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it's been litigated already in more statistically unlikely circumstances, actually - the real edge cases that get tested tend to be when someone dies at an inopportune moment and the inheritance depends on a nuance like what their citizenship was at the end of their life.

    But the Trump administration has shown pretty conclusively that precedent, the law, and the constitution can be ignored at will, so it kinda seems hollow to go down the road of figuring out interesting little legal minutiae when even the big, obvious, unambiguous laws don't really apply anymore.

    10 votes

  9. Comment on UK and Denmark are demanding overhaul of European immigration laws – Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen argue populists will continue to gain ground if something isn't done soon in ~society

    Greg
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    The issue here is that the extremists are stoking fear, pushing propaganda, deliberately creating division along racist and xenophobic lines, straight up fabricating an enormous amount of talking...

    The issue here is that the extremists are stoking fear, pushing propaganda, deliberately creating division along racist and xenophobic lines, straight up fabricating an enormous amount of talking points - and then couching it in the language of exactly those "real world issues" that you mention to sanewash what they're saying. And the extremists absolutely will not provide solutions, either, they'll provide performative cruelty as a distraction while they make the underlying economic problems worse by enriching themselves and their in group.

    We need leaders with the confidence, statesmanship, and PR ability to address genuine issues (wage suppression from employment law loopholes often filled by immigrants from poorer countries, for example, or homophobia in some immigrant communities) without legitimising the broad stroke "immigration bad" bullshit, and we need them to do it in a way that makes clear that the scale of the "problem" is a drop in the bucket compared to the coverage it receives. We need them to stand up and say clearly what is an actual issue, what's a fabrication, and what's a rounding error blown out of all proportion - rather than acting like the loudest issues, pushed by the worst and most divisive, are the most deserving of their time. We need leaders who'll lead rather than cowering to someone else's narrative.

    7 votes

  10. Comment on UK and Denmark are demanding overhaul of European immigration laws – Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen argue populists will continue to gain ground if something isn't done soon in ~society

    Greg
    Link Parent
    Yeah, I have no idea how this is even intended to play out. It's just accepting the narrative and saying "The populists are right. But don't vote for them.". It's perfectly possible to challenge...

    Yeah, I have no idea how this is even intended to play out. It's just accepting the narrative and saying "The populists are right. But don't vote for them.".

    It's perfectly possible to challenge the narrative in a positive way rather than just capitulating to it - Sadiq Khan does it well (reddit link because the Instagram original is behind a login wall) - but everything Starmer is doing seems to be predicated on the idea that Reform et al are making valid points in good faith, and behaving like that just legitimises them.

    8 votes

  11. Comment on Can a heavily modified Rivian take the EV Cannonball record? (Part 1) in ~transport

    Greg
    Link Parent
    I'm very much hoping they're content to just shave off a few hours from the EV record with the improved range and charging, rather than actually screaming along at 200mph or anything. I'm here for...

    I'm very much hoping they're content to just shave off a few hours from the EV record with the improved range and charging, rather than actually screaming along at 200mph or anything. I'm here for the engineering, not the driving!

    6 votes

  12. Comment on Can a heavily modified Rivian take the EV Cannonball record? (Part 1) in ~transport

    Greg
    Link Parent
    Yeah, I got the impression it was just lack of time to finish the project more than anything else - and I sure as hell empathise with that one! At a guess I’d say that monitoring system they had...

    Yeah, I got the impression it was just lack of time to finish the project more than anything else - and I sure as hell empathise with that one!

    At a guess I’d say that monitoring system they had on the laptop was already 80% of the way to being a fully usable BMS: it just needed debugging against whatever protocol quirks the real chargers have, maybe an extra sensor or two, and a few hundred miles of charge/discharge data to properly estimate the range and remaining capacity. Fingers crossed the rain issue is just going to be an extra weekend mounting the second charger into the tailgate with plenty of sealant rather than plugging it into the HV system by hand every time - I’m rooting for these guys now!

    3 votes

  13. Comment on Can a heavily modified Rivian take the EV Cannonball record? (Part 1) in ~transport

    Greg
    Link
    The engineering here is nuts: they've put enough extra batteries into the back of an EV truck to take it from 130kWh to 280kWh (or, as one of the YouTube comments pointed out, enough to run at...

    The engineering here is nuts: they've put enough extra batteries into the back of an EV truck to take it from 130kWh to 280kWh (or, as one of the YouTube comments pointed out, enough to run at 1.21 gigawatts for almost an entire second!), wired it to the existing high voltage systems through a DC-DC converter originally specced to be used in industrial power factor correction, added custom battery cooling that uses bags of ice from the gas station to stop it overheating, and cooked up their own dual charger input system that'll pull 500kW to charge the whole thing in half an hour!

    It's also just an incredibly engaging video of people clearly having a whole lot of fun on a project that's somehow simultaneously ridiculous, janky as all hell, and surprisingly technically adept! I will, however, save you all the fate that just befell me at the 37 minute mark by saying that this is apparently part one of two, and the second half isn't out yet...

    13 votes

  15. Comment on Grocery stores are profiling online shoppers and charging them dynamic prices based on algorithmically determined affluence in ~finance

    Greg
    Link Parent
    I sincerely hope you’re right, because the path I’m seeing here is: Instacart opens the door to variable pricing Retailers see the extra margins, demand their cut Instacart agrees to pay retailers...

    I sincerely hope you’re right, because the path I’m seeing here is:

    • Instacart opens the door to variable pricing
    • Retailers see the extra margins, demand their cut
    • Instacart agrees to pay retailers a share of the extra, possibly in exchange for exclusivity agreements
    • Other delivery apps either add variable pricing of their own to entice retailers back, or contract directly with Instacart to do it for them because they recognise the value of centralisation (Instacart are already doing Grubhub’s grocery service even before variable pricing, btw)
    • Five years from now, we’re all paying in store with InstaDashHub OptiPriceTM: Finding the best price for you! because the alternative is to pay the rack rate printed on the shelves and everyone knows those prices are insane. And after all InstaDashHub aren’t technically price fixing, because you pay less than the printed price (even if that has been marked up by a factor of 10 and nobody’s expected to pay it) - they’re just the helpful company giving you a discount, that’s why every single store is using them…

    And yes, I know, I’m speculating wildly without evidence. But like I said, I’m following the path of maximum expected profit, and trying to exploit every hypothetical loophole I can - because that’s what businesses are incentivised to do too!

    I genuinely meant it when I said I hope you’re right. I’ll be very happy if this works out in a way that doesn’t harm the average person! I’ve just spent a good few decades watching things work out in very non-economics-textbook, non-consumer-friendly ways and I kind of expect that to continue.

    4 votes

  16. Comment on Grocery stores are profiling online shoppers and charging them dynamic prices based on algorithmically determined affluence in ~finance

    Greg
    Link Parent
    The money going to Instacart rather than the retailers is a fair point, but the outcome remains the same from a consumer point of view: if Instacart think they can negate competitive pricing...

    The money going to Instacart rather than the retailers is a fair point, but the outcome remains the same from a consumer point of view: if Instacart think they can negate competitive pricing between retailers as a way to more safely increase margins across the board, it’s in their interest to do so - whether for Instacart’s own benefit, or as a way to incentivise retailers to push more shoppers through Instacart, or a combination of both. The consumer unilaterally loses out either way.

    Basically what I’m doing here, and in the various threads we seem to talk about this stuff on, is just trying to figure out how this can be used to maximise profits for the businesses involved - which usually comes at the expense of consumers, because using information or market leverage to extract more money than is currently being extracted almost always presents a better ROI than actually improving products or services. It’s not that I think companies enjoy screwing over consumers, or that they actively dislike improving products, just that finding ways to charge more for less seems to be the path of least resistance whenever there’s a way for them to tip the scales in their favour.

    And yeah, the RealPage comparison is very much from a consumer perspective in my mind. You’re quite right to say the dynamics of who’s paying who are different there, at least for now (if per-user dynamic pricing becomes more prevalent, say with some horrible AR and QR code pricing approach in store or something, the same could apply outside the apps). My point is the way the consumer loses out to these opaque, centralised information systems in a way that they didn’t quite so badly to a more open pricing model - whether the winner is Instacart, the retailers, RealPage, the landlords, or all of the above doesn’t change the fact that algorithmic centralisation can be used to work around a lot of anti trust regulations in a way the law hasn’t yet caught up with.

    tl;dr look for the cobra effect. Always look for the cobra effect.

    4 votes

  17. Comment on Grocery stores are profiling online shoppers and charging them dynamic prices based on algorithmically determined affluence in ~finance

    Greg
    Link Parent
    My thinking is that if you’ve got a third party setting prices centrally across multiple retailers, rather than the retailers doing it themselves, it gives a fig leaf for collusion that would...

    My thinking is that if you’ve got a third party setting prices centrally across multiple retailers, rather than the retailers doing it themselves, it gives a fig leaf for collusion that would otherwise be an incredibly clear violation of anti trust laws.

    Want to ensure your competitors all raise the price on a certain item along with you, avoiding the whole game theory question about undercutting and being assured that you all get higher margins? Well as long as you’ve all agreed to the dynamic pricing algorithm that definitely just happens to do that as a side effect of price discovery, you can do so with impunity! Or, should I say, allow the marketplace to do so on your behalf, leaving both sides with hands that can legally be argued to be clean. See also: RealPage.

    4 votes

  18. Comment on Grocery stores are profiling online shoppers and charging them dynamic prices based on algorithmically determined affluence in ~finance

    Greg
    Link Parent
    That’s not accounting for information asymmetry (price discovery and comparison is much harder for the consumer when prices are variable) or the consumer psychology aspect of pricing, though. All...

    That’s not accounting for information asymmetry (price discovery and comparison is much harder for the consumer when prices are variable) or the consumer psychology aspect of pricing, though. All things being equal, a lot of companies would prefer to sell fewer things at a higher margin, not sell more things total - and dropping prices too low for some customers could compromise their ability to do so.

    I also don’t think it’s realistic to apply that kind of economics textbook assumption about pricing curves to real systems, given the reality of what we observe in the market. I’ll admit this part is conjecture, but based on the business behaviour and consumer behaviour we actually see, I think it’d be more realistic to assume that variable pricing by a third party marketplace would be used as a way to disguise price fixing between retailers than to assume it would be used to reach a fair equilibrium with consumers.

    6 votes

  19. Comment on How Europe is gearing up to follow Australia's teen social media ban in ~tech

    Greg
    Link Parent
    The ban specifically exempts some platforms (notably Discord, among others), which I think is sensible in trying to mitigate that issue a bit - they're guiding people towards a more specific...

    The ban specifically exempts some platforms (notably Discord, among others), which I think is sensible in trying to mitigate that issue a bit - they're guiding people towards a more specific subset of platforms, rather than just saying "no online communication for you" and pulling a surprised Pikachu face when everyone ends up somewhere even worse via a VPN.

    Will it work? I'm not sure, I've already expressed some concerns about that further up. But it looks like they're at least attempting to guide people towards the smaller, more human platforms for actual group conversation and away from the churning infinite feeds of advertising and propaganda.

    7 votes

  20. Comment on How Europe is gearing up to follow Australia's teen social media ban in ~tech

    Greg
    Link Parent
    To be fair, if this kicks everyone back into IRC-style independent chats rather than giant algorithmically driven advertising engines I’d consider that an absolute win! I don’t think that can...

    To be fair, if this kicks everyone back into IRC-style independent chats rather than giant algorithmically driven advertising engines I’d consider that an absolute win!

    I don’t think that can really happen - the internet is too big and the incentives to infiltrate any and all platforms with bots are too high nowadays - but even a bit of fragmentation might not be a bad thing.

    15 votes