ethan

The ICJ, also known as the World Court, did not deal with South Africa's main allegation on whether Israel is committing genocide, though it said Friday it would not throw out the case, as Israel requested.

It started out as a simple rebuttal of your false claim. I was expecting a plain ‘oops’, maybe with an edit correction of your claim. Now it’s about how you accuse others of maintaining a selective reality when in fact it’s you who decided to selectively craft your own reality of what the court said.

So you’re acknowledging that reality doesn’t matter to you, campism does? Well fucking done, you are the literal embodiment of the meme you posted.

If grapes and chocolate are evil I think I’d rather be evil.

Lol, the audacity to post objectively and verifiably false information, then when you’re informed that it’s false not acknowledge that fact and deflect to some completely meaningless point about the holocaust, then when you’re informed that that point makes no sense you deflect to a random meme and attach the opinion of some other guy.

You don’t actually care about ‘reality’ like your meme implies. If you did you’d care to actually look at the judgement (like I did before commenting, took me five seconds to find and two minutes to speed parse) before deciding what you wanted the judgement to say to selectively suit your own emotional reality.

(A) You do know the ICJ didn’t exist during the Holocaust, right? They can’t rule on the actions of states that aren’t party to the ICJ, which by the fundamental nature of how time works includes Nazi Germany.

(B) The fact that the ICJ didn’t declare it a genocide was simply a rebuttal to your unfounded fictitious assertion that they did. How you interpreted that as a statement that genocide doesn’t exist without the ICJ is beyond me.

Point out to me a single line in the judgement where they condemned Israel for genocidal actions, or even directly stated that Israel was pursuing genocidal actions. It’s not there.

Creating a paid or ad-supported client app for a website isn’t profiting off of content, it’s profiting off of the user’s desire for a better mobile experience. There’s no ‘stealing’, the developer never has access to nor purports to own any of the content themselves- it’s simply a voluntary intermediary for a user to access their own account with their own content feed.

That said, any client apps that run ads are dumb and will fail miserably. It’s awful for UX. Just so long as client apps can be monetized in other ways I think it’s fine to adopt a license that prohibits specifically ads.

This same story was posted yesterday, so I’ll rewrite what I did back then:

Most of this report is patently ridiculous. HRW asked people who follow the HRW social media accounts to please send in perceived instances of censorship they’ve seen for the Palestinian conflict social media, they got about a thousand examples from a self-selecting population, then published a big exposé about it.

There’s no comparative analysis (either quantitative nor qualitative) to whether similar censorship happened for other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past.They allege, for example, that pro-Palestinian posters didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown. The obvious next step is to contextualize such a claim- is that standard policy? Does it happen when discussing other topics? Is it a bug? How often does it happen? But they don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.

The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive or neutral portrayal of terrorist organizations, especially concerning those with political wings like the Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but blindly presenting a thousand taken down posts like it’s concrete evidence of a global conspiracy isn’t at all productive to that discussion.

Most of this entire report is patently ridiculous. They asked people who follow HRW’s social media to please send them instances of censorship on social media, get about 1,500 random examples from a self-selecting population, then publish a big expose about it.

There’s no intensive comparative analysis (statistical or otherwise) to other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past. They allege, for example, that some people didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown- is that standard policy? Does it happen in other cases? Is it a bug? They don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.

The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive portrayal of terrorist organizations with political wings like the PFLP and Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but cherry picking a couple thousand taken down posts doesn’t make that discussion any more productive in any way.

Because as it’s currently designed Apple is not handling any of the actual transactions- those are handled by the Payment Service Provider that the merchant is required to provide to be granted Apple’s permission to use the API.

If Apple opened it up to non-Merchants (who don’t come with their own PSP), then Apple would have to act as the PSP which is a much larger headache that they don’t want to deal with.

Honestly, BlueSky’s AT Protocol fixes pretty much all of these issues (save for having a single actor controlling things as for the moment it’s still in active development and not adopted by any other project).

Even if you never intend to sign up for or use their protocol, I’d give it a read- it’s a really fascinating system design:

https://atproto.com/guides/overview

I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how data is handled in federated systems. When an account from Threads interacts with your post or you interact with a Threads post, information is exchanged exclusively through Actions sent between the servers- never to or from your or their client and another server. It looks like this:

Client <=API=> Instance <=Action=> Instance <=API=> Client

They don’t get any information that isn’t already available publicly to any random user on your instance- no IP address or anything otherwise. Threads’ mobile app data collection has no bearing on their ability to collect information on you.

Edit: To be clear- there is theoretically a set of protocols in the ActivityPub spec that allows for direct client to server communication (unimaginatively called ActivityPub Client-to-Server), but it hasn’t been adopted by any current Fediverse software implementation that I’m aware of.