The first one to synergistically integrate AI into their search platform (read: without destroying their ad revenue stream) will be the winner

All sites that use it do so because managing user authentication is an enormous PITA and if you don't have any special requirements it fits the bill nicely.

That's also not how cookies or ads/ad permission work... OAuth allows third-party websites implementing OAuth access to your Google account. Unless you are blocking cookies and/or configured something to block ad scripts, you're getting cookie'd. The UK & EU has the GDPR, which really just means you need to inform users of what data you store, how you use it, and what you track and why you are.

Some of the nicer websites ask for your permission for the more superfluous cookies, but they are not restricted from using cookies as long as they are disclosing that they are somewhere. GDPR is more about ensuring user data is handled in a responsible manner, not to restrict websites from storing cookies or anything similar necessarily.

Think more along the lines of those checkboxes stating, "I'm alright with letting you send me sales emails" — that's GDPR in action. That and the cookie disclosures, which are usually just legalese jargon like privacy policies or terms of service pages.

No, that is an absurdly hyperbolic, poor take on my position that is reflective of the media you've been consuming for the last few years. I made some significant edits to that last reply while you were replying it looks like, so might be worth a reread.

For what it's worth, I will never resort to violence, or encouraging violence towards any political opponent, like what you've described just now — but I do think those who attack the unity of our nation through lies need to be tempered. That applies to everyone left or right, not a single person. It needs to be done with reality in mind, though.

A lot of what set off the right on the MSM can be accurately boiled down to human error from the necessity of a news reporting on events as they happen — it would be insane to think they wouldn't make mistakes, or view things from their own biased lens. No one is free of bias after all.

Again, the dividing rhetoric was fueled by hyperbole from many pundits in unison on the right. Hyperbole is not a right-leaning politically-exclusive tool, but in that situation there was some uniqueness in the employment of it among those who did it. In fairness, we saw some of that from the left during the COVID as well. Again, not politically-exclusive.

Just curious, how would you illustrate a realistic future where we actually are able to put most of this nonsense behind us and reunite? To me, it's going to have to be very somber, painfully boring, involve a gratuitous amount of humility, and incredibly saddening for many for the quality time lost in exchange for effectively nothing. Yet, we do need to get there eventually, otherwise we all fail.

I'm glad you were able to cut some of the disingenuous crap and give a real, heartfelt response here, that's a positive change from 99% of the conversations I've had like this, but you do realize Trump is himself a massive lifelong cheater, right? You don't need to know much about the guy to realize that, a basic understanding of his family & his personal history makes it obvious.

Of course that isn't to say the left is totally bereft of wrongdoing — there are some loose ends on the left too, c'est la vie, and absolutely some serious wrongdoing — but the magnitudes & consistency are what separate them. The only reason you still feel certainty is the hyperbolic nature you've been fed those half truths.

Dig into those as hard as you dug into Qanon crap and you'll have some painful, but massively long-term beneficial results, both intrinsically and extrinsically. It's just coincidentally the last thing you may feel like doing, but it needs to be done in my opinion. That isn't to say you're doing a shit job overall — I'm sure in many ways you're a great person — but in some regards it's certainly true, that's true of everybody including myself. Nobody is perfect.

If you take even a cursory review of his presidential run & patterns of operation during his presidency, you should see the poorly reflecting connections, the unscrupulous acts, but because he was constantly deflecting to "but the left <insert dividing half truth here>" you bought it all, hook line & sinker and apparently haven't thought twice about it since. Remember deep state? And how effectively zero came of it? Yet, he managed to auspiciously stack courts & ironically install his own version of a deep state. Strange, don't you think?

You're his patsy. His enabler. And you know what... Maybe he is a genius, because he had the foresight to see that you would happily play that role until it rotted you from inside to out. Look at yourself! You're so hateful towards bogeymen on the left for actions he has committed personally while holding the highest office of our nation, all while driving a massively polarizing narrative to divide the left and right. And still you sit here and pretend he is a paragon of good. Man, he really is good. Again, just to be clear, there are similar efforts across the political spectrum at play — at all times — if I don't point this seemingly obvious thing out usually people just assume otherwise for some reason.

Naturally, though, Trump is only a cog in the machine that designed the strategy, but still, look at yourself today in 2022 -- he certainly pulled something of significance off, regardless if he was the hand or the puppet. Perhaps a fair counterpoint here would be to point out how dazzling Obama's oration skills were which did similar things to some on the left. I get the feeling this back-and-forth will continue until the end of time, though... At the end of the day, we're all just pawns in another's grand game of chess.

When these things happened, it was largely Trump at the helm. What's your point? It wasn't illegal, and nice fake virtue-signaling, I'm sure all of that is as true as everything you've written or linked to on this thread.

Free speech is public speech against the government, not your speech on a private entity's website. They can enforce just about whatever arbitrary decisions they want to in regards to the content on their own private website. That is part of their free speech as a private entity. This poor take is based in a lack of understanding on free speech law, and was never a valid argument. If you disagree, show me the provision it breaks.

Do you also defend the unwell people screaming nonstop in Walmart with this incessant passion? They should be allowed to do that 24/7, no? It doesn't matter that they're in a private venue, since there are a lot of people there they should get this amorphous protection from private censor you seem to think Twitter users deserve, right?

If you were right and using your time wisely you'd be bringing this up to lawmakers, not spouting off the same tired takes on virtual forums. Your only option is to continue regurgitating the same points, however invalid they are, this is why it's pointless for me to keep talking lol, because you aren't even trying to have a real conversation. In real conversation, opinions change based on evidence & reason, but you have refused to allow your invalid opinions to be altered.

It's disingenuous and all of this Twitter bullshit is because you and people with the same stubborn, counter-productive attitude can't stand that lots of people know better & won't listen to you, but you refuse to understand the why. It's completely absurd. You just push forward and act like by sheer will you will get your way, eventually. What happens when an immovable object meets another immovable object, though? What makes you believe your will is so special? The only way this ends is through you becoming introspective enough, or you losing your shit completely because "I'M RIGHT AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT!"

What's worse: Trump artificially spamming & amplifying socially-damaging lies, or the FBI requesting Twitter to look at particular posts on their platform that according to their ToS are not welcome? It's also worth noting... Both are totally legal. If there is a law broken here please point it out, and let's not resort to trash-tier sources like NYPost and DailyMail. If that's acceptable to you, it would be fair for me to start citing The Onion.

The reality is Twitter were still the primary arbiters of their platform, and decisions made were that of their leadership. I really don't care for your hyperbolic discourse, it's disingenuous. You are clearly not interested in having a proper back-and-forth here, you're just here to peddle a poor narrative and that's it. Very lame.

Those scenarios make literally no sense, and don't validly compare what happened at Twitter in the slightest. If you need to use nonstop hyperbole to illustrate your point, you probably don't have much of a point.

If you can't recognize the danger that was posed when Trump started fomenting lies, never called out Qanon bullshit, then I have no desire to converse with you. I've tried that, and it goes nowhere. If you can admit that Qanon was a massive disinformation campaign constructed to support efforts to influence US politics & the minds of morons, and that Trump failed the nation by letting it go without demerit, then there is a chance we can have a productive conversation.

Final word if you can't do that: FBI's duties include investigating & reporting on domestic/INTL terrorism, cyber crime — among other relevant things. They didn't force compliance from Twitter, they were simply both aware of the obvious threat the combination of that kind of rhetoric and artificial amplification of messaging has.

Twitter has the right to work with government officials if they so choose, and if you want to tell me the FBI was wrong then show me the law that was broken, or the force that was applied to make them comply. If the twitter files actually had something of substance, I don't think you'd be peddling this kind of hyperbolic bullshit, so I'm going to just assume you're full of shit since the only sources you've provided with "evidence" are NYPost and DailyMail.

So FBI agents literally just notifying Twitter staff of ToS violations = fascism? I think further up you said they got paid, was that in the 'files' or are you just assuming?

I think you're romanticizing consciousness. We are logical creatures and we make logical choices, much like an AI is programmed to. Of course, we have the ability to pull a wild card, but that's just an inversion of the same logic, which is programmatically possible as well.

Your beliefs and values are the datasets you've been provided with, which you base your decisions on. If {statement} is true, then {something} else {something else} is quite an accurate summation of our own decision making process, regardless of how you want to pretend it is more than that.

Tell me something, how do you decide what to do next?

Only true if they don't leverage AI & recent advances in automation, and think they need to hire gobs of people because jobs. Which... They're making semiconductors, so one would hope they're not idiots.