I have been running the same copy of Facebook and Twitter and certainly YouTube on my phone for many years now. they could try, but it would be a cat and mouse game at best, and the only real recourse they would have would have been to try to detect API abnormalities (which Twitterific could quickly fix, and frankly the skeleton crew at Twitter today likely couldn't do well anyway) to directly punish the end users for continuing to insist on logging in with alternative clients (as Snapchat is forced to do) and, while it is easy to just shut off Twitterific's API key and tell the users "too bad", I think having to take the war to Twitterific's userbase (as the app would be able to keep working forever, with only momentary brownouts) would be a tougher pill for Twitter to swallow, given that it had way too much marketshare at this point. I maintain the position I have had ever since Twitter sold people on the ridiculous idea of "API keys": the correct path has always been adversarial interoperability (as we did back forever ago when people built alternative apps for instant messaging services) if Twitterrific had been designed to use the same API and authority as the official app-maybe as a fallback, if nothing else-Twitter would not have been easily able to kill it. maybe there's some wrinkle i haven't thought of yet, but it doesn't seem like rocket science. > your thesis that bad behaviour only happens because people are unaccountable is demonstrably false.īut is bad / antisocial behaviour much more likely when expected to be relatively free of consequences? i'd almost bet my life on it. that he is a celebrity is irrelevant, imo. I could see this argument, but musk's actions are having serious consequences on thousands++ of people, at least - thus, i would argue it is and should be a big deal. > And we have to consider the fact that when a celebrity does something, it is blown to a much bigger proportion by the media. Your argument seems pretty amoral - like, you don't expect musk to even have a sense of right and wrong, much less try to act in a manner which many/most would consider decently. If you can legally do something, then it's ok to do it? or you should do it? > Not trying to defend the guy, but come on - he bought a company, took it private, and he is now free to ruin it as he sees fit. Meanwhile, murderers face real consequences for their behaviour, and you see it happening anyway, so your thesis that bad behaviour only happens because people are unaccountable is demonstrably false. Elon Musk does it? “What an antisocial monster corrupted by power and money” Some random small business owner blocking third parties? Nobody cares, most apps aren’t even that open to begin with. He’s just making the decisions he thinks are best for Twitter (even if I disagree with them).Īnd we have to consider the fact that when a celebrity does something, it is blown to a much bigger proportion by the media. Not trying to defend the guy, but come on - he bought a company, took it private, and he is now free to ruin it as he sees fit. > if people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example If it happened to Elon Musk then he must’ve been bad from the start. I think some people want to believe it just “reveals character” as a defence mechanism, as in, that could never happen to them, they’re a good person, and they’d still be good even with wealth. I agree with you in that money and power corrupt. If people are able to operate largely without consequence, then they might act in antisocial ways - like musk, in this particular example.īut you wouldn't have to go outside your own daily lived experience to find all sorts of people doing all sorts of bad things because they are relatively unaccountable - they don't face real consequences for their behavior. and if not that, then some semblence of equality - of power, in particular. It's why socialism has always probably been the answer. Give everyone a hundred bucks and make them dependent on each other for survival, and watch antisocial behavior drop to near-zero near-instantaneously - i.e. and one might turn out to be like mackenzie scott. give anyone a billion dollars and watch most of them become monsters, probably. The difference is 'creates' vs 'reveals'. I'd go more with, 'wealth can allow one to become monster', or 'wealth creates monsters', or similar. Feel like this is probably demonstrably wrong, but too lazy to google it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |