Help me understand this a bit -- why would a subreddit buy advertising? Is there a feedback loop or revenue share with mods?
Or is this purely a ponzi thing where you buy bitcoin worth 100 bucks, spend 100 bucks on advertising and end up with the same bitcoin now worth 1000 bucks.
It's entirely possible, I'd speculate. I once called Apple tech support for help with my iPhone. So they could see what was going on right on my phone, they were able to remotely request a "screen sharing" session, which I had to click "Allow" on a dialog on my phone to approve. One can imagine that such an approval dialog is not actually required in a technical sense, and _theoretically_ a screen share could be remotely started without any such dialog/notification.
While true they can access a phone based on the user opting in, there's likely a high degree of "security" around how and when this can occur including the necessity of a user opting in.
Tim Cook has taken a very public stance on privacy and the addition of police-unfriendly encryption of data. So, there's much to lose if news were to come out undermining that position.
He probably would not be going so far out on a limb personally if the reality of the privacy/security/encryption were just for PR. His integrity is dependent on that position being true.
Slowing things down for political purposes in entirely another matter, and well within the realm of probability.
> forensic companies like Cellebrite can unlock/get the data from almost any iOS Device
I don't think this is true. Essentially Cellebrite gets ahold of an unpatched exploit that Apple then quickly fixes; that's far cry from being able to unlock "almost any iOS Device".
> One can imagine that such an approval dialog is not actually required in a technical sense, and _theoretically_ a screen share could be remotely started without any such dialog/notification.
Well I mean, they wrote the OS so they can theoretically have it do whatever they want. But there's an extremely high probability that the way the OS is written, they cannot remotely trigger screen sharing without the user confirming it first.
The new iMessages in the Cloud claims to be 'end to end encrypted', which is true, but omit the fact that a copy of the key is stored with Apple in your iCloud backup...
"Messages in iCloud also uses end-to-end encryption. If you have iCloud Backup turned on, a copy of the key protecting your Messages is included in your backup"
Given that almost everyone has iCloud backup enabled, messages are certainly retrievable with a simple court order.
College is running an ad campaign, one of your co-workers saw it (consciously or unconsciously) earlier in the day, and that is what lead to the college coming up in conversation?
Your friend could have searched for the college before or after your discussion, or maybe even your friend had just been looking up old college friends on Facebook lately and that was enough to match up that ad and you. Not that I wouldn't put it past Facebook to do something like this, but it will be hard to prove from anecdotes because, ironically, Facebook captures so much other data that plausibly could reveal the same connections.
Are the founders hoping for additional kitten games? It seems that the game art is protected by copyright and trademark. And the breeding game itself is possibly covered by a patent. But what about representing this kitten data as cats elsewhere? I can't tell from the Terms of Use if this is encouraged or discouraged.
"A. You acknowledge and agree that we (or, as applicable, our licensors) own all legal right, title and interest in and to all elements of the App, and all intellectual property rights therein. The visual interfaces, graphics, design, systems, methods, information, computer code, software, services, “look and feel”, organization, compilation of the content, code, data, and all other elements of the App (collectively, the “Axiom Materials”) are owned by Axiom Zen, and are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent, and trademark laws, international conventions, other relevant intellectual property and proprietary rights, and applicable laws."
This is a cool scheme to address the problem of URL-impermanance due to the fact that DNS name ownership/control can change over time. It allows you to specify a URL plus a date.
I wrote a short blog post about the problem a few years back, and the Tag URI scheme ended up being one of the best solutions I came across, which is how I know about it. Some links in that post and comments may be of interest to people: https://masonlee.org/2009/08/21/is-the-web-sticky-enough/
Interesting to think about for sure. Facebook's algorithmic solution seems to be that to the extent that any post is a true draw to Facebook, that post will get more likes and thereby be more likely to percolate up into other users' main feeds. Boosting that post will therefore cost less. This provides sort of a sliding scale without pricing tiers.
"Then you suddenly changed the way Posts are seen by people who have already followed a musician’s page to the net effect that an average post is seen by a tiny fraction of the people who have liked the musician."
As Facebook user and band-liker, I don't want to see every post from a band-- just the posts that are relevant to me.
I'd expect that Facebook's current post "boosting" mechanism should work excellently for self-managed, touring musicians: Make a post about a local show, then pay just a couple dollars to "boost" that post specifically to users who like your page and live in the area of the show. The UI for boosting and targeting posts is super easy already, and we should expect it will just keep getting better.
Is the author asking for automation of the posting/boosting for multiple tour dates?
"As Facebook user and band-liker, I don't want to see every post from a band-- just the posts that are relevant to me."
I think the frustration with music lovers is that relevance isn't really determined by ad spend or what's promoted (I already determined a band was relevant to me by liking them) and it shouldn't be difficult or require extra "boosting" for bands to just have a follower receive each update they have.
I have a friend who is very into music and uses facebook because artists and their fans haven't agreed on some other music centered social app (yet).
He wants the exact opposite of what you described i.e. see ALL updates from all bands I follow in a feed.
His feeling is "Facebook sucks for music because I don't even see the posts from the artists that I follow". I tend to agree. If you are following some niche group or organization and you want to be certain that you receive updates... well facebook isn't good for that anymore. Who knows what you have been algorithmically disqualified from viewing?
Yeah, getting the main feed right is a general issue for Facebook.
If someone really wants to know about a few bands in particular, liking some of their posts will cause more of their stuff to percolate up into the main feed. But they have to keep liking.
To see all posts from bands one can make an "Interest List" containing the bands. Posts from members of that list will show chronologically. But I don't think showing all posts is the solution to getting users the info they want.
What happens if a band page creates a Facebook event? Does the event get recommended to likers nearby the event? That could be an approach.
Author is probably correct in that Facebook needs clear guidance here.
https://medium.com/@paulbars/magic-internet-money-how-a-redd...