Not excusing what Harvard and Zuckerberg did. Joan Donovan is not an advocate for transparency and open discourse, either. Google her name and you will find she is quite alright with censoring.
Had a quick look and Donovan is a board member of Check My Ads [1], "an organization that pushes advertisers to ditch right-leaning media" and they've wrote articles in favour of social media bans [2]. They're probably referring to that.
On top of that the "Public Interest tech lab" is but a giant data harvesting machine and most of the apps they create are either about physically tracking you, organizing students into various cells that get benefits for "attending events" and communication within those cells or various politics focused applications.
Here is their privacy statement (of the app that holds all your centralized data):
> MyDataCan may access, use, and disclose Your MDC Data as follows:
> To respond to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process; in response to a request for cooperation from law enforcement or another government agency; to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding actual or suspected violations of our Terms of Service or this Privacy Statement, illegal activities, fraud, security or technical issues, misuse of the Platform or an App, or other misconduct, or to enforce our Terms of Service or this Privacy Statement; as otherwise may be required by applicable law; or to protect our rights, property, or safety or those of others.
Also they encrypt none of your data, and the only encryption function they have can encrypt your data only upon your explicit request after uploading it and only the data about yourself shared with you IN YOUR PERSONAL COPY OF THE DATA.
Also, they advertise
> providing access to technology and data for public interest research and development.
strange, I think it was cause I was on Mobile that the numbers were different. Also why I couldn't see the explanations.
I was referring to #49. The explanation says its a "Little earth composite of the sky".
The challenge the profession currently faces is that a lot of people go into it for the wrong reasons and who are not suited for it. Because there is no money in traditional graphic design, many graphic designers elect UX thinking it's nearly a 1:1 transfer. There is a lot of mis-match.
You really have to really like and have a good sense of human cognition and human factors first and foremost. You also have to like thinking in systems. You are basically design (engineering) solutions for how humans interact with computing in all its forms and in many modes.
Many designers, whether they admit it to themselves or to others, would really rather be designing book covers and concert posters.
And the people who ARE interested in those get less far because we don't have as many shiny things to show off to HR to get an interview in the first place.
I've hired a number of junior designers based almost solely on 'made up' projects and school projects. I know many others who have too. If you're good, or at least show potential, at the junior designer level it doesn't matter.
The challenge the profession currently faces is that a lot of people go into it for the wrong reasons and who are not suited for it. Because there is no money in traditional graphic design, many graphic designers elect UX thinking it's nearly a 1:1 transfer. There is a lot of mis-match.
You really have to really like and have a good sense of human cognition and human factors first and foremost. You also have to like thinking in systems. You are basically design (engineering) solutions for how humans interact with computing in all its forms and in many modes.
Many designers, whether they admit it to themselves or to others, would really rather be designing book covers and concert posters.
Spoiler: they don't! The ACCESS act, for example, applies only to services with > 50 million MAU and either sales or market caps over $600 billion. Since there has never been any company with $600 billion annual sales, it applies to only 7 companies in the world, and really only 6 because I don't think Saudi Aramco really qualifies.
> Since there has never been any company with $600 billion annual sales
I wonder if someone clever might exploit this loophole to kill the reverse repo market, which is almost hitting $600 billion daily. And technically it's run by the fed, which is technically a private entity. This is obviously an outlier within an outlier and God knows the government wouldn't let it's magical money maker come under fire, but it seems like with the right set of circumstances this going in front of SCOTUS could completely undermine how our entire concept of debt and lending works in the US economy.
Everything I'm saying is purely speculation. This actually happening is about as likely as the US admitting it invaded Iraq for oil (and a bunch of other more nuanced reasons). It's not about honesty; it's about money.
The Fed executes repos and reverse repos. It does not run the market. Primary dealers execute these through tri-party repo agents, which practically is like two banks.
Walmart is close to that $600B sales number (~$560B revenue in 2020), but not quite there. Their website claims 100M MAUs, though, so they'd be covered [0].
Comcast likely does meet that 50M number, depending on how you look at things. They have ~30M residential customer relationships, but that's likely only counting each household once (as opposed to per person in the household).
AT&T's Q1 earnings listed 44.2M domestic subscribers, just considering WarnerMedia (HBO + HBO Max). Again, probably counting customers as opposed to household members that use the service.
Verizon's Q1 earnings listed 94 million "total wireless retail connections".
(While we're listing subscriber counts for video streaming -- Netflix also meets the 50M threshold, and Disney+ probably does.
Netflix has 74M US+Canada subscribers, but there are only 10M households in Canada... Likewise, Disney+ "only" has 40M US subscriptions but again, subscriptions vs household members.)
The restrictions and remedies here seem fairly harsh. Of the sort you'd only want to cover monopolies (but-we-don't-want-to-prosecute-you-as-monopolies).
Telecom definitely needs its share of modernizing, but it should probably be more targeted.
The fact that ISPs don't even come close to those numbers is a good example of why tech companies are a much bigger problem than ISPs. ISPs are the monster under the bed big tech has been paying people to scare you with so you don't look too closely at them.
Neither is Google's, their marketing to the contrary. Installing another app store on their phone OS (which has no competition) requires several steps involving disabling so-called security protections and then side-loading the store. Search is largely protected by the fact that every business must do business with Google if they're to have any customers at all, etc.
Obviously, physical infrastructure is a bit harder to switch, but I have three major wireline ISPs here, four major wireless ones, and I believe two satellite services are an option too. Meanwhile, most Google services have no meaningful competition that isn't incredible niche.
> Installing another app store on their phone OS (which has no competition) requires several steps involving disabling so-called security protections and then side-loading the store.
Letting users sideload an alternative store the Android way seems like a pretty reasonable solution to me. The experience is pretty much identical to installing arbitrary executables from the internet on PC (in that sometimes your system will pop up a security warning but you can continue despite it). The key difference being people are used to doing that on PCs and not on mobile devices.
But the only alternative seems to be mandating that app stores host competitors, which feels too specific to make for good legislation in my opinion.
But there's another problem which is the Google Play marketplace has a nation's worth of advertising spend to throw at getting eyeballs on it while something like F-Droid... doesn't advertise? And while there are good apps there, the level of polish is nothing like what you see at the top of the Google Play store. People are just so conditioned by shiny trillion-dollar tech that human-scale tech seems old/shady/etc and no amount of legislation is going to change that.
It’s safe to say that the main revenue driver, Google Search, has easy-to-switch-to competitors like ddg or bing. Android is an indirect revenue driver since it defaults to Google search but it’s far from the majority way people get to Search.
This is untrue, if you understand who the customer is, and who the product is. As long as Google holds 70-90% of Search, businesses have no choice but to pay Google to run Google Ads. Because most products being sold are using Google, and Google sells the top search result as an ad. Businesses can't meaningfully switch their ad revenue over to Bing or DDG, and the network effects of that ensure Google can't be deposed.
> Obviously, physical infrastructure is a bit harder to switch, but I have three major wireline ISPs here, four major wireless ones, and I believe two satellite services are an option too.
Okay, but tens of millions of other Americans have only one broadband choice (if they have one at all). There is clearly a monopoly issue there.
On mobile, reddit.com/.compact is an option. It's pretty stripped down but has some solid pros: it's fast, it has evenly sized (height) posts, the comments are easy to view. The post links with in-reddit photos/video do direct to the bad site, unfortunately. Another con (or pro) is infinite scrolling.
