(Not arguing with you, just with the concept of the bill)

Doesn’t the news outlet benefit from the traffic and clicks generated from that user engagement?

What’s the government’s rationale for social media platforms to subsidize media outlets monetarily in addition to driving people to their content?

Yeah, I am not Canadian so I’m sure there’s some information/nuance I don’t understand here, but from what I can tell from looking at a few articles from different sources:

• Canadian government passes a law that would require Facebook to pay and/or share ad revenue for every link out (posted by the media outlet, not by Facebook) to an external news website

• Facebook says they don’t want to do that, and will stop showing news links to comply with the law

• Canadian government says “no not like that” and now wants to force them to allow links to news outlets, which de facto forces them to pay/share revenue with those media outlets

Like I said, I’m assuming there may be something I’m missing here, so please any kind Canadians who can help fill in the blanks would be appreciated

You have no data to confirm that the historical data on ticket prices they used is also specific to the Bay Area, only the Taylor Swift ticket price.

You shared this because it aligns with your world view without taking a moment to consider the validity of the data, which is perfectly ironic considering how full-throated you are to try and make a piss-poor argument that I’m somehow trying to be an apologist for capitalism because I dared to challenge data that’s obviously incorrect.

Capitalism is plenty bad for a myriad of reasons, it doesn’t require false information to prove that point. Hyperbole does not strengthen an argument, it weakens it.

Do some self-reflection.

Yeah I can’t think of a single artist off the top of my head that I would personally pay that much to see, but it made my girlfriend happy and that’s worth $100 to me any day

I’m fervently defending not posting misinformation. Don’t get it twisted.

The problem is the insinuation made by the infographic is that artists are to blame for ticket prices.

This would be a much more powerful (and factually accurate) infographic if it focused on fees and how Ticketmaster is largely to blame for the balloon in costs for event tickets over the last few decades.

But it doesn’t say that, at all.

Also, the fees per ticket for Taylor Swift were $22. Not cheap by any means, and a total rip off, again, at the fault of Ticketmaster. But let’s not throw around made up numbers if we’re trying to be factual.

Okay so they used resale prices, AND based it off of average ticket cost for a show in San Francisco, one of the highest COL areas in the country?

That’s not making the logic they used any more sound….

lol yes exactly. Kind of hilarious and stupid that they reference BLS as a source, which I’m assuming they meant for the minimum wage figure to calculate the hours, but they also don’t show what that minimum wage figure is on the infographic….

Just a really poorly crafted piece of rage bait designed to do exactly what it’s doing here - piss people off so they share it.

Yeah but we’re not talking about Ticketmaster fees, we’re talking about ticket prices. If you exclude the fees and just talk about the ticket price itself, they were $79 each, which further invalidates this “infographic” if you can even call it that.

Ticketmaster sucks fucking ass, no debate, but that’s not the point here.

And also, saying any artist “chose” to list on Ticketmaster is kind of disingenuous, almost every large stadium and venue (in the US at least) has a contractual requirement to only sell through Ticketmaster, which, again, is proof that Ticketmaster sucks fucking ass, but isn’t really any artist’s fault. It’s the Ticketmaster monopoly.

I bought 4 tickets to Taylor Swift for my girlfriend and her friends and paid $407.57 total after all of the bullshit Ticketmaster fees.

~$101 per ticket isn’t cheap, but $900+ per ticket is either scalper/resale prices day of the show, or for some fancy VIP tickets, or just a made up number.

It’s because the proposed changes would give the UK government de-facto authority to dictate how security and encryption are implemented.

…a provision that would give the UK government oversight of security changes to its products, including regular iOS software updates. The Home Office consultation proposes “mandating” operators to notify the home secretary of changes to a service that could have a “negative impact on investigatory powers”.

It would mean in practice that the UK would dictate how Apple employs encryption around the globe, unless Apple was willing to fork their software and build/maintain a UK-only branch for their products.

Which still wouldn’t solve the issue because if you interacted with someone over any of those protocols who was in the UK, your messages and data would be accessible by the UK government, regardless of the other party’s location.

I’m with Apple on this. This isn’t a consumer-focused piece of legislation for repairability/interoperability like some of the newer EU legislation, this is a government trying to ensure they have the technical ability to spy on their citizens and others. It’s the definition of anti-consumer.

What a shitty response to a valid question. I’ll make this easy and just block you so we can end this here.

Sure, it’s manageable now, but it quickly won’t be if Lemmy continues to grow the way it currently is. “Add mods in the future” is kind of a hand-wave of the problem, which is that you need mods who are:

• fair and responsible
• willing to dedicate (potentially large) amounts of time and energy to moderating
• willing to moderate for free

That disqualifies a large swath of people from moderation.

Now of course, it’s possible and it’s happened before, Reddit has a huge number of dedicated unpaid mods and it’s because of them Reddit was able to grow to the platform it was.

But it’s a little more complex than “throw more people at the problem” when you need people who are incentivized by something other than payment.

The unfortunate problem is that once you remove money from the equation, power is the closest great incentivizer. And power hungry mods are bad mods.

Wrongly blocking people simply because a report was submitted against them, even if it’s unsubstantiated, is better than users having to do some proactive blocking/filtering?

A report has to be reviewed for accuracy, there’s still time and resources required. It’s not as simple as just blocking every post or user that has a report submitted against them. People abuse report systems all the time.

Rules are only as effective as the mechanisms enforcing them - I don’t think anyone wants ads on Lemmy instances, but removal requires moderation tools and staff (volunteer or otherwise) to review everything that’s posted.

I imagine the problem we’ll see is as growth accelerates, post velocity will outpace moderation manpower - short version, you’re always going to have to do some blocking/filtering of your own.

Threads only shows users who have signed in to Threads. If you mention an Instagram user in a Threads post that has not signed in to Threads prior, the mention is removed because it’s not a valid handle.

I urge you to read through the link in the original post to the Mastodon user who originally made this claim, where you’ll find plenty of people more eloquent than me explaining why this is inaccurate.

But the point you’re making isn’t clear which is why I asked if you could clarify - what is the point you’re making?

What is Meta doing here? I’m not clear on what the point being made is.

If you’re insinuating that they are doing this to artificially inflate user counts, why wouldn’t they be reporting about how there are 2+ billion threads users in the first week?

They don’t need to manufacture hype - like Meta or not, in the first 96 hours they brought in almost 100 million users. Thats a third of Twitter’s entire active user base, in less than a week.

I too understand where you’re coming from, but I think it’s an important distinction, not semantics.

If Meta was simply creating a duplicitous profile for every Instagram user, that would be pretty predatory and misleading.

However, if that were the case, they would also be bragging about having 2+ billion Threads “users”.

It also implies that users could interact with these “shadow accounts” even if that person never used Threads, which is not the case.

As it currently works, if you try to mention a user who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, nothing happens, the mention is stripped because it’s not a valid handle.