You can't really ban "them," because you cannot objectively and factually verify they are bad actors. Check out how many startup pitch groups there are on Clubhouse. Some of those folks are actual investors, and some are just social media publicity stunt gurus. But both can sound equally good. Snake oil salesmen are going make a killing on Clubhouse.
True, although it is not exclusive to Clubhouse. These actors are everywhere on the internet: newsletters, videos, tweets ... This just gives them an easy option to take money directly, instead of first funneling those funds through other products.
Could you help me understand two fundamental issues? (1) Why would I use Mojeek over Google and (2) how do you make money?
Key constraint: you cannot answer "because privacy" for #1, unless you can explain what that means.
Fundamentally, I don't understand why privacy matters.
Google finds stuff that I want , when I want it. How it does it doesn't concern me, as long as it can. It seems (based on using say Duck vs Google) that Google wins by a landslide in quality of search results.
Can you deliver better results with less tracking, and how would I know those are in fact better results?
And of course, if I am to trust all my search to you tool, how do I know you'd be around in 10 years?
"Most people who haven't experienced that kind of failure can't appreciate how much it hurts." - tld. Yeah, most people who are not in startups think you just got a bad quarter or launched an underwhelming project. They have no idea. Talking to other founders helps a lot though. You think you are alone, but then turns out your mind wasn't all that f--up at all, comparing to some others. Cheer up, you will eventually put it behind you, maybe.
Same. I just said I was no longer using WhatsApp. Sure, it puts the pressure on them to switch, and makes you the bad guy for a while, but it works.
I mean, they are not going to stop using it for other people, but at least your communication will be somewhat private. At least until WhatsApp finds a way to siphon data from other apps that is.
The iPhone itself? I mean, I am more than happy to be proven wrong. But can we know, for 100% that while I am simply using my phone, Apple isn't actually collecting its location via their own APIs, or those of my cell carrier?
Right. I think what I am trying to say is that by focusing on illusion of privacy, Apple can take a long view on abusing the said privacy. They are all trying to murder the other guy with whatever tools they've got. FB is using ads and data, Apple is using their device strong hold, MSFT is going after business users...etc.
It's not that one is better or worse, but I think it's important to recognize that each one has its flaws.
They tried it circa 2012/13. It was a partnership with Microsoft/Nokia, meant to get people in developing countries hooked on Facebook at a very low price. The phone was crap though, even by dev county standards. I remember testing it, and everything took foreeeever.
On a bright side, it was the same time when FB put a ton of effort into improving their mobile web experience, realizing how bad it was on bad phones with slow networks.
I understand why people are upset with Facebook. I find it interesting that same people don't seem to be upset with Apple, while Apple is largely playing the same game.
Forget all you know about Facebook ad practices for a second, and take a look at what Apple is doing, but putting "Mom and Pop LLC" in place of Facebook.
Apple is using their enormous power to essentially pick and choose what is allowed to execute on your device. Sure, they give user a "choice" to either restrict and app, or to allow it, but they never, ever, give user the same choices about Apple itself. Apple "helping" users to restrict others is no different from Microsoft installing internet Explorer for everyone, to "help" users browser the internet.
In this case Apple is getting all the goodies about the user: their location, their usage, their connections, everything. Meanwhile, they are blocking others from having it.
The difference is that Apple is waving the freedom-fighter flag first, thereby making everyone else look bad in comparison.
It is shocking to me that some people actually prefer to rely on "fact checkers," as if those people are somehow more intelligent, and less biased than the readers themselves.
In fact, the idea that someone could check these facts for you, almost explicitly stipulates that you, the reader, are somehow less capable. But we are not talking about changing oil in the car, or doing brain surgery, we are talking about maybe the only thing that each individual can do on their own, unsupervised, to the beset of their ability - use their brain.