A longstanding conspiracy is the tale of how Facebook is listening in on your conversations, but the way it is actually serving you ads is much more unsettling.
A longstanding conspiracy is the tale of how Facebook is listening in on your conversations, but the way it is actually serving you ads is much more unsettling.
See, there you go, lost me completely now. “We should be preemptively pissed off about imaginary offenses because you just KNOW these people will eventually get there” is not how we should run our brains, let alone our regulations.
And now I’m skeptical about not just your hypothetical objections but about all of them. That’s the type of process I find counterproductive.
Anyway, all good with me in the agree to disagree front. Have a nice one yourself.
I’m happy to address your reply.
That’s a wildly inaccurate characterization of what I said. I’m trying to get out of this interaction because you misinterpret me and then move the goal posts. You went from “we don’t really know what happened” (which isn’t true) to “my point all along is that what’s really happening should be the focus, these things happened with the system working as intended” which is still incorrect. Now you’re splitting hairs over inconsequential details based on broad misunderstanding.
Nice dismissal of my entire perspective without understanding it. My objections aren’t hypothetical. We know that audio clips are accidentally saved because it happened. We know that Apple knows it happened because they acknowledged it with a formal apology. The intention isn’t the important point. They apologized because they got caught. If they hadn’t gotten caught, their process of capturing audio would have resumed and probably increased as they sought to streamline their services. That’s a reasonable projection.
Is your case here really that I had a point up until I requested we end this interaction? And then suddenly nothing I had said made sense to you anymore? Please.
Sure.