If they actually want to arrest someone, the local authorities need to do it, and they would agree only if the request is valid based on their international agreements, their asylum laws, etc.

Best description of Telegram that I've seen so far.

I do trust Signal to keep the phone numbers safe with their methodology for doing that, but probably wouldn't anyone else.

I mean you already here such arguments from smart TV makers and their fans as well as in other industries.

The real truth is all of this stuff would be fixed if a new standard and baseline was set for them so none of them have to do any of this stuff to survive. They'll find other ways to compete.

I know, it's a crazy idea, right?

https://noyb.eu/en/new-us-executive-order-unlikely-satisfy-e...

Copyright is meant to be a "public pact" to encourage creation and innovation.

But think about that goal for a minute. It doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to create one awesome thing once and then benefit from it for life as a rent-seeking fat cat.

Instead, it should give you a reasonable amount of time to benefit from the fruits of it, but afterward, you should be encouraged to create again. So you'd be motivated not just by the carrot of making a lot of money over a 10-year span after launch, but also by the stick that you will no longer get royalties after 10 years, so you need to keep innovating. There is even a study out there that shows that the buyers of most books drastically drops after 10 years.

This benefits society at large, since it creates more competition, both from the original author of a work, but also by others who are then allowed to make iterations of the original work.

That's why patents are time-limited, too. The idea isn't to give one company the "right" to make money off an invention for eternity, but to allow the whole society to profit from it eventually by allowing others to drastically improve upon that original idea afterward.

But why was it ever intended as a "public pact" and not like an "actual right" that authors have? Because let's not forget that no idea is 100% original.

In fact, most aren't even 10% original. We all live "on the shoulders of giants" as they say. So most works are just rehashing of old works - so that also means that if enforcement was 100% the inflow of new works would drastically be reduced. So you don't "deserve" to benefit from a "new work" that's actually mostly rehashed old ideas anyway.

I always recommend watching the Everything is a Remix series to get a new perspective on this based on the history of copyrighted works:

https://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series

"Is the company removing this competitor from the market hurting competition in their own market in the long term?"

It's way better for the market to let the cash-rich large corporations attempt to develop their own competitor to a new threat they might see in the market than to allow them to buy that competitor.

It would've been better for us if Instagram was never bought by Facebook, Admob never bought by Google, and so on.

Sure, maybe they wouldn't have gotten quite as successful on their own, but for one perhaps Facebook wouldn't have become as strong as it became in the social media space (a good thing) or they would've been forced to create a NEW competitor, and we all benefit from more competitors in the market. Instead they removed one and made themselves even more powerful.

You're discounting the law of accelerated returns. It might take another 50 years to make a "big discovery/milestone in curing aging" but from that point forward it might become a lot easier to cure aging.

Windows 10 is a privacy disaster compared to previous versions of Windows. They track every single app and website you open, what files you have on your PC, and much more.

But all of that has been masked by the fact that he's been aggressively pushing the ad team to keep increasing the revenue each quarter - and he's been "successful" in that.

But all of that is killing the company both directly (too many damn ads in Google products these days), as well as indirectly (not having a good vision for all of the other products, destroying the "don't be evil culture" that make Google great and beloved, and so on).

Of course by the time this is obvious to Google's board, Pichai will already be a billionaire himself if he isn't already, so who cares what happens afterward, right?

When the data companies want on you becomes a liability in case of data breaches, one of 2 things will happen:

1. They'll drastically improve their security

2. They'll stop asking for a lot of data just because they think they might use it later or because they want to sell it to others.

Good point. Why are sentence times stacked for people, but not corporations? Corporations are people, too!

The only reason he's still CEO is that he's milked the Google brand for all its worth and has made everyone a shit ton of money.

Other than that, the direction he's been giving Google, as a brand, has been terrible.

Why are they scary? Are people's private conversations in their homes scary, too? Are private meetups scary?

I feel like people have by default fallen for the government propaganda and they don't even realize it.

What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Would the cops even be able to filter through thousands of such thoughts on a daily basis and take action against the most "real" thought? Or would they be flooded by data and not know what to do with it and how to act, and only act after the fact anyway?

Remember for virtually all of the terrorist attacks in the past 15 years, the authorities were already well aware of the attackers' history. Some had even been arrested before and released.

None of these surveillance laws is the right solution to those types of problems. Those problems have other fundamental causes that create them (economic policy, education policy, healthcare policy, etc).

And the governments know that, too. But such laws have other much bigger benefits for them, such as the ability to spy on any single person that they feel has slighted them in some way at will, so they can destroy that person's life. They care about passing surveillance laws for this reason way more than what they say the reason is in public. Another benefit is spying on individuals for economic benefits, too, such as stealing other countries' or foreign company's trade secrets, etc. But of course you're never going to hear them preach new surveillance laws for those reasons.

In all seriousness, every now and then I open YouTube by mistake in another browser that doesn't have ublock, and the experience is infuriating - having to waatch 5+ second ads on every video I search for or look at. How do people stand it?