I disagree. Nintendo and Sony don't earn the majority of their profits by selling ads. Facebook does. Nintendo and Sony customer base is people buying games while FB's customer base is advertisers. At the end of the day, each company will do what it must to retain/acquire customers.
> People seem to think this is Facebook injecting ads into games all willy nilly
Based on previous behavior, this isn't an unfounded line of thinking. Many of the statements made by FB in regards to Occulus, while true at the time of the statement, have been completely reversed.
It is completely fair to expect that, at some point in the future, FB will inject ads into any VR app on Occulus at will.
It's hard to assume a centrist's opinions on these things. Anecdotally, the centrists I know and talk to regularly are entirely aligned with the left on those issues.
Centrists don't pick the middle of every issue, they pick issues from both sides they agree with.
For example, a centrist may be FOR universal healthcare and AGAINST gun control. Or FOR lower taxes all around and FOR $15 min wage.
Taking each issue as it's own instead of aligning with one party or another on all issues is what a centrist is, to me.
Edit: I'm a self admitted centrist. Feel free to ask questions on my views if you'd like more info.
The problem with autodelete or timed content is with caching services. There are a number of sites that allow you to see deleted comments. If a social media service is large enough, I imagine the same will be created.
Once something is on the internet, it is always on the internet.
I find the best solution is to simply never use a social media account attached to your real identity.
Innocent comments taken out of context or a general changing of accepted speech can turn a decade old bit of text into damning evidence of bigotry, racism, or any other ism.
We all know the answer to this. It absolutely should be opt-in, but they know that around 96% of people will never opt-in. See: iOS 14.5 privacy changes.
Imagine if Google partnered with Valve to bring your steam library to Stadia. That would have instantly won over millions of gamers. I would have bought into Stadia so I could play my games while traveling.
To me, someone that has been playing games for 30+ years, Stadia couldn't have been handled worse. They tried to pull a Microsoft and enter the gaming world, but forgot to have the killer app like Halo.
How often have you had windows switch your default browser? Genuinely curious as I've been using Windows 10 since release and have never had my default browser switched away from Firefox.
It could also be due to how awful the new user experience is on Reddit. A journalist would be instantly turned off to using it as a source.
If you haven't seen it in a while, using a new browser or incognito mode, view reddit without logging in. It is an absolutely awful experience. The content you see as a new user is basically all memes and you are blasted with trending content on top of the card based feed.
Completely agreed. If the redesign was the first impression of reddit that I had, I would have assumed it was another news spam site and not created an account or used it daily for the last 10 years.
Every recent feature they release that contributes to the "social media"-ization of reddit has not added anything useful to the reddit experience. I wonder what their driving goal is at the moment, besides the likely upcoming IPO.
I would say that we have different definitions of 'abuse' in the case of Google. Of course, Google doesn't sell your data directly to anyone, allow anyone to get your metadata, or allow anyone to view your data. In that sense, I also completely trust Google to be good stewards of my data.
That said, while I agree that Google does not 'abuse' my data by giving it to others in any form, Google absolutely does use my data to try to sell me things. From my perspective, this is abuse. Google is using data that I generated to psychologically manipulate my behavior.
When Google Search, gmail, and other like services from Google were released, Google was a tech company first and foremost. These properties/services were offered for "free". At the time, most people didn't realize that "free" meant paying with your data. Now, Google is an advertising company and I do not want them to have my data because of that fact. In a similar vein, if The Trade Desk or another adtech company provided a "free" email service it would likely not be widely adopted as it would be well understood that users are paying with their data.
>if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser
This segment of the population absolutely exists and I would guess that it is growing. Many people in my circle block ads on every device possible. Seeing any ad is an immediate negative impression for my group of friends.
This is entirely anecdotal, but I've seen this same sentiment in many other circles and am hearing it more and more often.
> It's completely inacceptable that a single company holds the sole power to access such a widespread platform.
Why? What about Apple's practice is unacceptable?
What is the difference between Apple's behavior and how Nintendo or Sony run their platforms?
Personally, I do not want another store outside of Apple's because I value the review process. Compare Apple's app store to the Microsoft Windows Store. The relative quality of apps on Apple's store is significantly higher than on Windows Store.
Edit: fixing typos