312

(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

no shit.

The source is Counterpoint Research as linked in the article - the 55% figure in the headline is misleading, the statistic is really “55% of new devices shipped”, not total market share.

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.

It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.

This is akin to saying Google Calendar is “forced” on you if you have a Gmail account. They are separate services that use a common credential, you are under no obligation to use any or all of those services.

There’s plenty of things to hate Meta for, but this is inaccurate.

You log into Threads with your Instagram account. There’s no “shadow account”, you’re logging into a second service with the same account and credentials.

The examples in the FTC complaint are all well and good, and as I already said, Amazon sucks and their predatory practices are well-known, but this specific example, the one we’re talking about on this post, is pretty pedestrian.

If the OP were to post the 7-step process it takes to cancel a prime membership, that would be firmly and wholly in asshole design territory, I know, I’ve had to go through it myself. But just posting a screenshot of a mild upsell that has a clear set of binary options on opposite sides of the screen and saying “Amazon bad” doesn’t really contribute much - everyone knows Amazon sucks, and there are plenty of examples of them sucking, this just really isn’t a very good one.

Why would it be two buttons on the right, and what behavior would you expect if “Cancel Anytime” was a button?

The goal of this is to get you to sign up for Prime, so there’s nothing yet to cancel.

This is “annoying” design in the sense that getting an upsell is annoying, but I don’t really see it as malicious/asshole.

Yes, but I assume the OP is referring to lemmy-ui, which is the built-in frontend for desktop and mobile in the browser, which does not at this point support dynamic conversion of youtube links to embed cards AFAIK. App support of embeds will obviously be on a app-to-app basis.

Embedding videos doesn’t require local storage of videos. When you embed a YouTube video, you’re just linking a container which loads and displays the video from YouTube’s servers.

In order to quickly fix it they would probably have to roll back the change to require login to view tweets, which would be admitting that it wasn’t caused by “attacks” on Twitter, which Elon won’t do. Rock and a hard place.