I wish there was some type of consumer union where we could negotiate with these companies as a block.
Q4 '20
Worldwide: 10.14
US: 53.56
Europe: 16.87
Asia Pacific: 4.05
Rest of world: 2.77
So you're worth just over $200 a year. This has gone up a lot over time and is considerably higher than other social networks. Just a year ago, it was 41.41 (23% less) and a year before that is was 34.86 (15% less).
It's harder to do a comparison to google, but I'm sure you're very valuable to them as well, increasingly so.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average...
As a working professional adult, who has access to many others working professional adults, I assure you, ads work.
You’re simplifying ads to a barebones click to rate exchange. Ads are way more subtle than that.
Advertising to impulsive spenders is worth more than advertising to less impulsive spenders. Less impulsive spenders are informed by ads, more impulsive spenders are convinced by ads.
https://s25.q4cdn.com/442043304/files/doc_presentations/2022...
Certain ads being seen by certain people might be a lot more valuable than average? It might be interesting to know who these people are.
How much does my vote count even for representatives if I’m in a state that’s heavily gerrymandered?
Still, the best proportional representation for you is local. So mayor, state rep, governor.
And before the whataboutism replies start, I’m sure the same happens on the other side. I just know more about my own state.
Proportional representation occurs in the House.
Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.
Even though many points made about the constitution were rooted in political theory, and make good sense even today, that doesn’t change the fact that the people involved were politicians who were looking to make the best deal possible within the context of a rapidly failing state under the articles of confederation.
The large slaveholding states actually wanted 5/5ths whereas states will small slave populations wanted 0/5ths. Slaves couldn’t vote, their interests were ancillary to the whole discussion. The compromise was about pure political power for those that dominated them.
The repeal of the 3/5ths clause along with the subsequent legal restrictions and terrorism against the black population of the south that followed, gave the south more power, and subsequently made it harder to dislodge Jim Crow.
But your point is still very valid. Somehow people are comfortable compartmentalizing the notion that the constitution is/was perfect, except for that one part that somehow doesn’t count and was “inevitably doomed” anyways.
This is exactly why the Senate was designed this way.
> Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.
Federalism still exists even if you don’t see it.
The political problem they were trying to solve at the time (balancing the interests of independent sovereign political entities with respect to land claims and future political power) doesn’t necessarily map onto the problems we have today.
https://www.fairvote.org/votes_vs_seats_in_the_people_s_hous...
You can't have a democracy with 100 IQ idiot majority, because their decisions are governed by whatever gets poured into their poorly working brains that week, so you end up with corporatocracy or fascism, pretending to be a democracy.
Tough choice, but I think I'll opt in for the latter.
Uh! Oh! But if not democracy, then what? Then fascism and corporatocracy - what we have had for as long as you've been alive. You just don't know it :)
Is this sarcasm? The web is a dark place because of targeted advertisement. I’d rather pay than be tracked and my data sold through bidding processes.
The problem with current internet is that everyone is trying to get the ad money so they don't really align their interests with us who want quality content.
Apple is a cartel and Google pays the protection money that Facebook failed to. If Apple really cared about privacy and not money, they'd block Google from the platform too.
A single policy changed wiped 25% of a trillion dollar company's market cap. That's a gravitational wave that shows what kind of overwhelming monopoly power Apple wields.
To be clear, I hate Facebook and ads, but Apple is an incredibly dirty business and is doing massive amounts of harm to startups and our industry as a whole.
Apple owns "America's computer" (50+% of average American's internet usage), and they control it like a dictatorship. High taxes, close inspection of every deploy, arbitrary rulings, forced use of Apple platform pieces, no possible business relationships with your customers.
The DOJ needs to step in and remove the App Store monopoly, its tax, and its arbitrary rules. When you run a device this pervasive and entrenched, it's no longer a platform. It's a common carrier. App installs need to happen over web, where they'd still be just as safely sandboxed, monitored, and remote killswitchable.
To be fair, they didn't block Facebook from their platform. Users now just need to agree that they want to be tracked (spoiler: practically no one wants to be tracked).
I don't disagree with your general take and save for an iPod classic I don't own any Apple gear. But in my book that was one of the better moves that Apple ever pulled.
If Apple didn't give their users tools to control tracking, wouldn't that be more dictatorial?
I would be fully on board with that. 100% pro-consumer, pro-small business.
Apple needs to protect its consumers, but the US government needs to protect businesses against the Apple monopoly.
Why is that more fair? I bought an iPhone a month ago (my first) in part because I want their version of the App Store and I want more privacy controls. I actually like that Apple's requirements push developers to make a native app rather than a web app (for example).
I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that 30% is too large of a cut and it's well past time for payment reform. However, I think consumers would be worse off losing Apple's more tightly controlled app store implementation. If you want more options, go Android. That's what I did for more than a decade.
I've already enumerated my problems with Apple here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30196852
I would be fine if Apple removed tracking if the DOJ removed their app store.
Your problems outside of the 30% (which is valid) is that you want to be able to ship crappy cross platform web apps and know more about your users (which I don’t want).