deleted by creator

I’d rather see something where the algorithm is open and pieces of it are voted on by the users and other interested parties. Perhaps let people create and curate their own algorithm’s, something like playlist curation on spotify or youtube but make it as transparent as possible, let people share them and such. Kind of like how playlists are shared.

Isn’t that already how it works, sans the transparency part?

You press “like” on something you like, and the algorithm shows you more that are related to that thing you just liked. Indirectly, you’re curating your feed/algorithm. Or maybe you can look at this from another angle, maybe the “like” button isn’t just for the things you like, but also the things that you don’t particularity like, but would like to see more.

Then there’s other people around you, your Facebook friends, their likes also affect your feed, as you can see the algorithm suggests things that “people that are interested in things you’re interested in, are also interested in”.

You’d be surprised

Yes, that is what is happening. But that’s not what I’m asking. I know there’s imbalance between the rich and the poor in the justice system. What I’m asking is, is that how it should be?

You’ve accepted that as an acceptable thing that rich people/companies don’t have to obey the law, and that rich people/companies obeying the law is a bad thing? Because what you’ve said above is that because Meta is rich, so they shouldn’t obey the law.

You don’t buy that it’s the law?

not when you have the obscene money and power that Meta has. They could have fought it and resisted,

What you’re saying is because Meta is rich, they don’t have to obey the law?

Agree. People like to act like Lemmy is a utopia where privacy is always protected and what not. The fact is when it comes down to it, the admins have to comply with the law. If a warrant shows up at their door, they got no choice but to give up information.

We were armchair warriors on Reddit. Now, we are armchair warriors on Lemmy. insert spidermen pointing fingers at each other meme here

TL;DR: If you want to use Tesla’s charger patent, you’re allowing Tesla to steal your patent and you can’t sue Tesla for it, even if the patent is not related to charging technology.

Well yes, but to use it the company will have to give up a lot.

From https://www.makeuseof.com/why-manufacturers-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/:

Tesla offers its patents free of charge and won’t launch a lawsuit against any company using them. This sounds great, but this only applies to companies acting in “good faith”, as defined Tesla’s Patent Pledge. This clause has significant business implications and explains why many haven’t utilized Tesla’s patents.

According to Nicholas Collura, an attorney writing for Duane Morris LLP, using Tesla’s patents forfeits a company’s right to bring action against Tesla for any form of copyright infringement—not just in relation to the patents. Essentially, if Tesla stole a company’s software code, that company would need to give up any protections offered under Tesla’s Patent Pledge to pursue legal action.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, using Tesla’s patents means that a company cannot assert its own patent right against any other electric vehicle company. This is especially risky for companies that rely on patents to gain a competitive edge.

The terms also deem that a company can’t challenge any Tesla patent, including those outside of the Patent Pledge, nor can it have any financial involvement in a company that does so. Collura notes the vagueness of this, saying that “Tesla could argue that a supplier has a financial stake in its customer’s challenge of a Tesla patent.”

That’s gotta be part of the reason why he joined Threads. To spite Elong.

Standard business practice. Every company create their own proprietary stuff and try to make them the standard via lobbying etc, then earn money from other companies when their stuff becomes the standard.