The source is Counterpoint Research as linked in the article - the 55% figure in the headline is misleading, the statistic is really “55% of new devices shipped”, not total market share.

It’s because the proposed changes would give the UK government de-facto authority to dictate how security and encryption are implemented.

…a provision that would give the UK government oversight of security changes to its products, including regular iOS software updates. The Home Office consultation proposes “mandating” operators to notify the home secretary of changes to a service that could have a “negative impact on investigatory powers”.

It would mean in practice that the UK would dictate how Apple employs encryption around the globe, unless Apple was willing to fork their software and build/maintain a UK-only branch for their products.

Which still wouldn’t solve the issue because if you interacted with someone over any of those protocols who was in the UK, your messages and data would be accessible by the UK government, regardless of the other party’s location.

I’m with Apple on this. This isn’t a consumer-focused piece of legislation for repairability/interoperability like some of the newer EU legislation, this is a government trying to ensure they have the technical ability to spy on their citizens and others. It’s the definition of anti-consumer.

What a shitty response to a valid question. I’ll make this easy and just block you so we can end this here.

Sure, it’s manageable now, but it quickly won’t be if Lemmy continues to grow the way it currently is. “Add mods in the future” is kind of a hand-wave of the problem, which is that you need mods who are:

• fair and responsible
• willing to dedicate (potentially large) amounts of time and energy to moderating
• willing to moderate for free

That disqualifies a large swath of people from moderation.

Now of course, it’s possible and it’s happened before, Reddit has a huge number of dedicated unpaid mods and it’s because of them Reddit was able to grow to the platform it was.

But it’s a little more complex than “throw more people at the problem” when you need people who are incentivized by something other than payment.

The unfortunate problem is that once you remove money from the equation, power is the closest great incentivizer. And power hungry mods are bad mods.

Wrongly blocking people simply because a report was submitted against them, even if it’s unsubstantiated, is better than users having to do some proactive blocking/filtering?

A report has to be reviewed for accuracy, there’s still time and resources required. It’s not as simple as just blocking every post or user that has a report submitted against them. People abuse report systems all the time.

Rules are only as effective as the mechanisms enforcing them - I don’t think anyone wants ads on Lemmy instances, but removal requires moderation tools and staff (volunteer or otherwise) to review everything that’s posted.

I imagine the problem we’ll see is as growth accelerates, post velocity will outpace moderation manpower - short version, you’re always going to have to do some blocking/filtering of your own.

Super shitty response to the question you still haven’t given an answer to, after I reiterated again what my understanding of the “so obvious” point was.

Whatever you want dude, happy to block you.

If it’s so obvious why can’t you state it clearly?

It seems like the insinuation is that Threads is artificially inflating user counts with “shadow accounts” that aren’t real - however it’s been clearly determined that they aren’t.

So, if it’s not that, then, again… what’s the “so obvious” point I’m missing?

Threads only shows users who have signed in to Threads. If you mention an Instagram user in a Threads post that has not signed in to Threads prior, the mention is removed because it’s not a valid handle.

I urge you to read through the link in the original post to the Mastodon user who originally made this claim, where you’ll find plenty of people more eloquent than me explaining why this is inaccurate.

But the point you’re making isn’t clear which is why I asked if you could clarify - what is the point you’re making?

What is Meta doing here? I’m not clear on what the point being made is.

If you’re insinuating that they are doing this to artificially inflate user counts, why wouldn’t they be reporting about how there are 2+ billion threads users in the first week?

They don’t need to manufacture hype - like Meta or not, in the first 96 hours they brought in almost 100 million users. Thats a third of Twitter’s entire active user base, in less than a week.

I too understand where you’re coming from, but I think it’s an important distinction, not semantics.

If Meta was simply creating a duplicitous profile for every Instagram user, that would be pretty predatory and misleading.

However, if that were the case, they would also be bragging about having 2+ billion Threads “users”.

It also implies that users could interact with these “shadow accounts” even if that person never used Threads, which is not the case.

As it currently works, if you try to mention a user who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, nothing happens, the mention is stripped because it’s not a valid handle.

It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.

This is akin to saying Google Calendar is “forced” on you if you have a Gmail account. They are separate services that use a common credential, you are under no obligation to use any or all of those services.

It’s probably even more simple than that - a single DB with a flag for threads_enabled = true/false.

They made it super clear in advance this is how it would work, the app is called “Threads, an Instagram app”, but as always people froth at the mouth for any opportunity to say “Zuckerberg bad”.

That’s not some big secret. Everyone knows meta sucks. We don’t need to make stuff up to prove that. They do that on their own.

There’s plenty of things to hate Meta for, but this is inaccurate.

You log into Threads with your Instagram account. There’s no “shadow account”, you’re logging into a second service with the same account and credentials.

Saying it’s a weak example of asshole design does not equate to defending Amazon.

It’s possible for Amazon to be extremely predatory and shitty, as well as this not being a very good example of how shitty they are, at the same time.

…being within the same container does not make them both the same clickable target. Do you know from personal experience that clicking “Cancel anytime” is clickable? Because as I said, over two hours ago,

It’s not possible to know from this screenshot alone if “Cancel Anytime” is a clickable target or if it’s just text, but when taking a quick glance at least to my eyes the options seem pretty clearly delineated. Amazon sucks and they are plenty predatory, I’m just saying this is a pretty mild example of hostile UI if at all.

Oh you just did it! “Cancel anytime” is not underneath the button, it is part of the affirmative button. Part of.

…but it’s not part of the button. The yellow button that says “Continue with Amazon Prime” is fully contained within the yellow button that one would click to proceed.

I’m not sure how much clearer the decline option being on the left, and the proceed option on the right, highlighted in yellow, could be.

And again, the “Cancel anytime” subtext isn’t even clickable, so what deceptive action has Amazon engineered here? For someone to click on a non-clickable target?

There’s no arguing that this is stupid design, but that doesn’t make it asshole design. Hanlon’s razor and all that.

I’ve been pretty clear that Amazon is predatory and well-known to be shitty. I’ve been clear using my own example of how difficult it is to cancel Amazon Prime as a great example of hostile UI design.

It’s possible to have an intelligent conversation about how the specific example used in this post isn’t a very good representation of hostile design, especially compared to the other egregious things Amazon has done and continues to do.

You don’t need to resort to being rude, it’s okay to say you don’t agree.