That wouldn't end up well.

But yeah people who don't live close to that specific spot should have 0 say.

This is an extremely small group of people.

Most of them pretend to be in the group to virtue-signal.

Same with homeless problem. We must not move/clear homeless camps (as long as those camps aren't next to my house, of course).

Bad stuff. I know.

It's important to not look suspicious. You may also need to start lifting weights right now. That long stick is going to be heavy.

Ok, let's get on it!

What do we do while we wait for the root causes to be addressed? It has been more than 20-30 years at least.

Can we use short-term solutions while waiting? no?

That's true for almost everything in life.

> Whatever they are doing with the Maltese government is just to increase the monthly active user count.

That's one of their main goals. Another main goal is to also make money. There are a few other main goals.

What do you mean by "just to increase"? Did they try to hide their goal? Was it a secret agenda nobody knows about?

These are some strange tautological comments.

The answer should be "yes". And here you just drafted one.

That's the point of going through SOC2. You make policies that you don't have and execute the policies for some amount of time to pass SOC2.

This will progress the game theory to the point where nobody will pay ransom because the thieves won't honor the deals anyway.

The executives don't want anyone else to be able to use the messages in a malicious way, so they decide to cut it at the sources of the messages i.e. e2e encryption.

This is like: corporate emails being deleted after 6 months. When an authority asks for emails from the last year, they can say they don't have it.

Now the authority can ask for the emails not to be deleted at all but then that will be a different battle the authority has to fight.

Corporate emails often don't involve pedos/terrorism, so there's much less push to retain corporate emails forever.

Australia already has this law in place where a company must hand over user's conversation. A company cannot make an excuse that they themselves implement e2e to prevent themselves from reading user's messages. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46463029

UK has a proposal to ban encryption this year. It is still being discussed.

> Public pressure would be unlikely to work

Public pressure works to a certain degree. Do you think a product manager at Meta would want to be labeled as "protecting pedos"?

The authority holds Meta responsible anyway; they don't care about the implementation detail. They want to catch a pedo, and Meta is unable to produce evidence that helps them. Everyone else will yell at Meta for helping pedos.

You can substitute "pedo" with any other heinous crime e.g. terrorism.

And this is how we arrive at the current situation.

Correction: pro beating abusers.

Not that I support caning by random teachers; this happens a lot of developing countries. A random teacher becomes the judge, the jury, and the executioner.

A caning punishment with proper investigation from proper authority seems like a good middle ground. Bullies should be punished. We cannot just brush it off as "they are just kids".

The unspoken rule is that the victim must only do hand-combat. They cannot use weapon in any way. If the victim uses weapon to defend themselves, they will be in the wrong.

Life is hard for victims. They are often bullied because they are weaker. And the only way out is to do hand-combat.

A lot of money. Managing a large group of people needs structure. It comes with tons of headaches and cost.

In terms of the investment:

It's Bret Taylor who has one of the most impressive background in tech. He can raise any amount he wants. VC bets on the person, not the business.

If Bret Taylor allowed me to invest, I would have invested too.

But to unable to run actual code at all? Come on. Who learns programming that way?

I never see anyone learning to program using pseudocode (which isn't runnable to get feedback).

If they used pseudocode, were they just run the program in their heads?

> A competent programmer can think about programming and reason about programs written in most languages without having to know that particular language intimately

That's because the programmer already learned how to program.

But when they started, they definitely didn't write only pseudocode that wasn't runnable (to see the results) for months/years.