matlag

It’s not just the funding, it’s the business overall. Public companies need to show growing revenues year to year, and worse: growing revenues with a minimum yield. A product can grow by attracting more users up to a certain point. Then the only way to grow is by making more money out of the same users base. If the revenue is based on ads:

• Extend the product so that the user’s engagement increases (channels/others kind).
• Add paying features (freemium approach, that includes blue stars or whatever the hell you want it to look like…)
• Serve them ads

Freemium is not always working well and Meta never used it. They have no new great idea to extend the product without eating their other products users bases. So the only one left is more ads.

Funding is not the issue, for-profit companies are. Non-profit is the way to go. Federation is even better as individuals/families/small organizations can run their own servers.-

Being factually incorrect is not an opinion. It’s being factually incorrect.

But knock yourself out: X does not censor, Earth is flat, whatever you want to believe…

Really? Do you realize how many people we’re talking about? This is where the idea that the human brain can’t comprehend interactions with too many people.

“Multiple indepondant people” might be 5% of the people, some of them under the mob’s effect (wouldn’t engage alone).

Maybe we miss another point of view, but maybe we don’t. This may be a screaming example of what you get as a representative of minorities getting a bit of attention.

Don’t worry: the law will be very carefully crafted so that it will be legal only if they do it, not us.

For the dishes: I don’t know the details of the 2 systems, but is there no way to retrofit the Starlink dishes to use Eutelsat’s constellation? I mean if we exclude the legal IP mess for reverse-engineering the electronics and software.

Summary: China is not a friend country. It’s a hostile country. Yes, we know.

But the news is… so is the USA to Canada now. A hostile country threatening to annex Canada and trying to cripple the economy as a way to achieve the goal. So either we slap 100% tariffs on US made cars, which would hurt Canadians, or we apply the same tariffs on Chinese cars, so reduce them from where they are at the moment.

Yes, but Canada had implemented 100% tariff on cars from China, following the US. That’s pre-trade war. The proposal is to lift that one.

Because that’s not about privacy, that’s about the trade war. Retaliatory tariffs on US cars increase cost of cars for Canadians, as there are almost no car assembled in Canada. Reducing or eliminating tariffs on cars from China would lower cost of new cars for Canadians while keeping the tariffs up.

For privacy and security, not a single new car on the market is decent right now. That should be regulated, but that’s no concern for any politician at the moment.