• arbitrary_sarcasm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    Media headlines that use the word lobbying probably do it so that people don’t take up arms. If they were to instead call it bribery, I think a lot more people would take issue with the whole process.

    • ramirezmike@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      they can’t really do that because that would be defamation and they would be sued for it. Bribery is a crime and while it is effectively the same as lobbying from our perspective, one is legal and one is not and a media outlet can’t just accuse someone of a crime without evidence unless they want to close up shop

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        When in practice Corruption is not investigated or prosecuted, nobody ever gets convicted of Corruption, the Media can’t talk about Corruption as it would otherwise be defamation, hence the country has no Corruption.

        I haven’t lived in the US but I lived in the UK and this was exactly how Britain had “no Corruption”.

    • Moineau@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “but muh marketplace!” “but muh highschool friends I haven’t seen in a decade+!” “but muh extended family I haven’t spoken to since I was 8!”

      Addicts won’t quit Meta. I’ve even seen posts on Lemmy with people defending Facebook. It’s gross.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Just force them to use open standards and for it to be easy for people to move platform whilst keeping all the connections to their profile: the power of such social media entities is that people are locked-in because if they move they lose the connections of both followers and those they follow, which often means family and friends.

      Basically a solution similar to that adopted in Europe for phone numbers - that you can take your number with you when you move providers - would reduced social media companies down to “just a pipe for social media connectivity” which would ultimatelly kill those with the worst practices given that the barrier to entry to be a “social media provider” is way lower than to be a fixed line telephony provider.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Not really. It’s just a fancy forum.

        Social network platforms have corporate controlled algorithms designed to maximize addiction. At the very least, you would need a “friend” system and who the fuck follows each other on here? When I was using reddit, one person followed me and it was a bot.

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        One where you can use any server and client you wish, as long as it implements the same freely-available spec. You can probably access the source code of the server and client you’re using.

        As with many things: the problem is not the technology itself, but the terms that capital owners demand we accept in order to use it.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        As if the US government could understand this platform. It will be a shame to lose lemmy.world though

  • TJA!@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The reason we have a Chinese competitor that we cannot directly control is that Meta is buying up every promising US platform and shutting it down. Or just trying to copy it so that the competitor does not get enough users

    • coherent_domain@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      As if anti-trust law doesn’t exist. It is crazy to me nowadays, most tech startup’s goal from the very start is to sale to a big tech competitor. This certainly should have anti-trust implications.

    • mac@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      What platforms has meta bought and shut down?

      I can think of zero examples myself.

  • CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 days ago

    So what does Zuck do when Trump uses an exec order to stay the ban and pushes Republicans to reverse it?

    • ansiz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      If Zuck gives Trump more money then why would he? Probably would just allow Meta to buy it or something dumb like that.

    • sil@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Trumps just gonna keep him hanging hoping he’s in the inner circle and bleeding him dry in the process.

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why does everyone think Trumps going to allow Tiktok. He doesn’t like China, and Musk is going to push him to ban it so he can buy it.

      • Taldan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        2 days ago

        ByteDance has a lot of money. Trump likes money. Trump’s only leverage over ByteDance is allowing TikTok, so he’ll do that in exchange for money

        Zuckerberg and Meta are much more centralized in the US, which gives Trump far more options in terms of what he can offer them. Trump will give Zuckerberg something else to placate him. Probably lots of cheap H-1B labor

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          If you haven’t noticed Trump says a lot of things. He’s always talking out of both sides of his mouth. I’ll believe it when I see it, we’ll see tomorrow. Also, a delay is not overturning it.

      • suigenerix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        You’re partially right. Trump originally wanted to ban TikTok because “China.”

        However, the platform’s influence on younger voters supposedly helped him to win the election, so he now favors it.

        No surprise that Trump’s personal needs are far more important than real US security.

  • Taldan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t know why I do this to myself, but I read through Meta’s disclosure

    Every single lobbyist I looked at worked in DC before becoming a lobbyist. I knew it happened a lot, but it’s really depressing to see

    Also, why do these disclosures not require companies to specify how the money was spent? There are only ~20 different lobbyists mentioned, and Meta spent 7.6M in a single quarter

    • mac@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yes, companies hiring people in politics or with government connections is a very normal thing