I know it’s a 90% chance you don’t care how Mozilla wastes its money and are just looking for an excuse to dismiss that one.

But maybe I’m wrong.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/germ-network_we-went-back-to-convex-to-co-host-our-second-activity-7317934307501662210-UQBz

That Steve Teixeira guy seems all right. He successfully lead profitable division and fought against his employees getting laid off …aaaand he’s laid off too.

Only after I make sure they’re legit by running them through FakeSpot NFT Guard.

Network TV still has a huge benefit: it’s not capable of watching you.

(Not accounting for the smart TVs, which are basically the only kind of TV you can buy now.)

Today [October 28, 2024] Germ announces pre-seed funding from investors K5 Global via partner Daniel Marcotte, Mozilla Ventures, Gaingels, and angel investors including Nick Sullivan, Jessica Millstone of Copper Wire Ventures, and Adam Sah.

https://www.germnetwork.com/blog/germ-announces-pre-seed-funding

Makes sense to me that streaming would get worse only after it managed to capture that market.

We can cross that bridge when we get to it. In the mean time, we have alternatives. Even in a worst case scenario, Mozilla can coast for a while without more Google bucks.

Spotify has flooded its own playlists with trash too. If you’re aiming at the rot, you’ve got to deal with the platform next.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/your-spotify-playlists-are-probably-filled-with-ghost-artists/

It’s pretty tone-deaf to criticize layoffs on the same article that acknowledges their historic dependence on Google’s rapidly collapsing monopoly. Where is the money going to come from?

If you scroll up, you’ll see the part of the article that mentions Mozilla wasting tens of millions of dollars on AI.

Where do you think that money comes from?

$200 million doesn’t cover the first billion in losses OpenAI inflicts upon itself, but I’m not a fan of this bailout regardless.

If you want deleted posts to have accessible comment sections after they’ve been deleted… Talk to the Lemmy developers!

@WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works please update your link

Touché.

The author responded to this response. You can see that here.

https://blog.cyrneko.eu/matrix-is-cooked

(This looks the same until you scroll down; you linked to a differen,t older version of the site that did not update the linked post)

I don’t like this article or this author’s conclusions. They answer the question “is internet content too engaging?” with “no, and besides, won’t you think of the free market?”

This article is unfortunate evidence that powerful groups who are critical of social media tend to be against the concept of free will itself (hello, Amy Coney Barrett), while powerful people who run social media are against the concept of reducing harm on their platforms at all.

A report by the American Psychological Association states that “using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people.”

Uh huh.

Meta’s internal research that prompted concern about the effect of Instagram on teenage girls actually found that most users reported Instagram either had no impact or made things better.

ACCORDING TO FUCKING FACEBOOK.

…proponents of “addictive design” theories misunderstand the impact that regulation and liability will have on media competition. In a world where content is abundant and attention is scarce, platforms that manage to reach a critical mass of users compete not just on size but also on curation quality…

TikTok provides a good example. TikTok didn’t overtake established platforms like YouTube by having more users or more content; it succeeded by creating a better algorithm that more effectively curated content to individual preferences.

Again, doubt. Sure, the free market provided a more addictive alternative to an already addictive product. It resembles a slot machine more than the previous version.

I have no idea how the author thinks this is a slam dunk in their favor, when it’s clearly the opposite.

I presume that, up until this point, the UK wasn’t intentionally paying them for the privilege

Google Play is the part of Android that is most threatening. On many devices, you can’t disable it without ADB trickery. And it delegates permissions to apps in total subversion of the permission system we were allegedly being kept “safe” by.

If the best argument in favor of something is “you have the right to do it,” the thing usually isn’t very good

“Why we’re updating our pricing” mostly says more people are using it than ever, not that they’ve made enough changes to warrant getting extra money.

And I guess that’s technically true. If people are too locked into their platform, then that’s a great reason for them to update their pricing: to benefit themselves over creators.

Replace “VC funded companies” with “enshittifiers” for a better view at how many people may read your comment