DW does not even have an RSS feed for chris sake.
The press is complicit in the hijacking of the internet. They made a Faustian pact. Now they are crying foul.
Might sound smart but perhaps not the wisest of criticism.
Let’s encourage dissent so we can preserve democracies.
The author argues they are too powerful. We had open standards and big tech embraced and then locked it into their platforms. We need regulations at this point.
But those giant sclerotic organizations could assume some responsibility for the mess they have helped create by, in the first instance signalling they understand this.
Somebody mentioned in the thread they have a trial account on mastodon. Good, five years late but better than never.
On the back end, there is I'm sure a complex and covert dashboard project and monitoring systems to detect ideas and trends that fuel/drive decisions in Google's deeply anti-competitive behavior. There's even a solid chance that legislators are tapped via enterprise Gmail services the government now heartily uses (for example), and Google knows everything that is coming through the pipeline. Everyone was warned by scholars long ago about exactly this scenario, but we keep re-inventing the Titanic and the Hindenburg on hubris and ignorance, it never fails. It's far too late to regulate this away. Google needs to be broken up and diversified into new and totally individually distinct and independent companies for future accountability and segregation of info to be upheld.
If you want to self host a site your ISP won't let you. If you want to self host email, none of your messages will get through.
15 years ago I could host a site at home. Today, it can't be done.
Want to regulate something... Make ISP's allow for self hosting. My 5 year old android phone has the power to host a small personal site, but my ISP won't let it happen.
Only because they got caught with leaks like the Twitter Files. Now their trustworthiness is at an all time low, and they need to make someone else look like the bad guy. Insert spiderman pointing at spiderman meme here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
The "whatabout" type replies would seem to require that the only websites that can report on the ills of the internet are ones that have no ads, no tracking, no telemetry, no data collection, and so on. Everything must be perfect. That's a bit silly. Shooting the messenger.
Arguably, it does not really matter who is delivering the message. It's the message that matters.
It's not too difficult to transform sitemap XML into RSS.
"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction"
I did not ask that they don't have ads, not track their readers, and so on. I asked why there is no link whatsoever besides the usual big tech traps.
Critical question or argument: Tech giants are hijacking the internet
Counter-question or counter-accusations: 1. Why doesn't DW have a link to a fediverse. 2. DW does not have an RSS feed. 3. The press is complicit in hijacking the internet.
The critical question or argument is neither answered or discussed.
Some media companies are experimenting with it right now: https://www.bbc.com/rd/blog/2023-07-mastodon-distributed-dec...
It makes sense for media companies to self host.