_Algernon_
Born on January 01, 2021•4630 Karma
Hiking often also occurs in areas with bad or no coverage causing higher battery consumption with the phone trying to connect. If you don't mitigate this (with eg. turning off or enabling airplane mode) this will burn through battery much faster than the usual city dwelling.
It doesn't seem like that big a step to apply a similar standard to advertising platforms. Advertisers have failed to selfregulate the ads they choose to publish and it is infeasible to use the court system to judicate every false ad (that would be millions of court cases). Ergo you do the obvious which is to make the advertiser name a human editor who holds legal responsibility for published ads (on behalf of the company).
Now you can sue the advertising company (eg. Google) for millions of false advertisements at once.
I can't sue a publisher for running an ad that was libel. I sue the advertiser who created the libel.
I assumed the US had something similar, but seems I was wrong.
However, our laws mean that Google, Meta, etc. are not legally responsible for the content of the ads they run. The creator of the ad is.
And it is shockingly easy to construct a legal entity that is unaccountable.
This would prevent foreign ads targeting domestic users, and/or give you an organization to sue domestically. In this case, it's likely that the Israeli govt would work through a US based org, and that in court that case would likely fail for free speech rights. Though a case/org in another nation might not hold up under that nation's laws.
Copying a thing or accessing a platform = the previous owner can still use or sell it.
Even if you consider it unethical access, the comparison to stealing really misses the mark.
It would be amorale if these services were not exploiting everyone they can, including the creators.
The better analogy would be, is it okay to walk out on a barber who is spying on your phone, coughing in your face, and won't stop trying to convince you to buy his buddies shampoo or vote for their political party.
I know this always triggers a hard-coded response based on regex, but the comparison doesn't rely on the specifics of stealing, so it's not a valid criticism. The logic is: people offer things in exchange for a price. You can take the things in exchange for the price, or you can leave the things. You shouldn't take the things without paying the price.
The main issue isn't the misinformation or disinformation; it is how quickly you can amplify reach and reach millions. Reverse chronological + follows based on active user choice would largely address that issue.
Usually it works better to exercise willpower to constrain your future self's available actions. For example, by not buying chocolate or cigarettes when you are at the store.
The same principle applies to your phone. Use your willpower to constrain what your future self can do with it.
This already happens with every ad successfully shown to a person. Why don't you criticize the ad business for much more extensive overreach instead of someone doing harmless activism on their own website?
Same reason Google has added AI summary to their most used product: search.