All kinds of things could be said about the second order effects of them booting an app, and most of them do ultimately involve the threat aspect of state actors or other rich VC class people and what they do.
I think we tend to forget, that their legals will be telling them they simply don't HAVE to do this. Not, what they should think, or do, but providing the cash focussed getout: you have no obligation here.
That passivity brings them advantages. Not having to act, means choosing to "wait and see" is a low bar justifiable decision inside their role and obligations. Not what you and I might think, what they feel obligated to do.
Remember that when Apple did voluntarily explore CSAM scanning logic, the community pushed back hard. So they have recent experience to drive wanting not to act. It hurt last time.
> that their legals will be telling them they simply don't HAVE to do this.
Their legals are, outright, telling them not to do this. Apple has an App Store monopoly, the moment Grok or X gets booted off then it's lawsuit time for them. Apple could at any point forfeit their monopoly by supporting third-party app distributors. But this is what they chose, and Apple has to balance the abuses with the judgement calls as a result.
> So they have recent experience to drive wanting not to act. It hurt last time.
What does that have to do with anything? Apple doesn't care how much things hurt their users. Any company that would suggest client-side-scanning is entirely willing to hurt their users, you just said it yourself: "most of them do ultimately involve the threat aspect of state actors"
Their decision to code CSAM "pink detecting" logic and deploy, hurt them. It hurt in terms of reputation, it hurt in terms of lost sales, and development costs which couldn't be recovered.
It's another sign that -by some measure- "America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism".
There was this opinion piece some months ago in the New York Times by Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt which I recalled when I read this.
[https://archive.is/WZMpM]
The left ("authoritarian" or not) is currently better at getting outraged (bottom, "delicatus"/"pasivo"?), and the right is better at trolling (top-- "activo"(?))
(This was the unambiguous Roman ideology I was maybe hinting at ..so you know Scott Locklin is indeed "non authoritarian" just like he claims
I basically picked the book because of this, and because wakipedia said it was the world’s most offensively misogynistic series of novels (all four novels were in this book). I was disappointed in this;
Note that here he applies the incorrect strategy -->
)
Long before we get to selfdeprogramming, mutual reprogramming looks like the left trolling the right, and the right learning how to get outraged.
Thus.. tips from homophilic role-switching ex-Nazis (leather lovin' fans of Rome long before the SV-neocon detente)?
„Die Partei ist kein Internat für höhere Töchter, sondern eine Kampforganisation.“
Q. What do woke parents and maga parents have in common when their kid Silas wants to be called "she/her"?
A. "Oh my god ... we no longer have a son!"
^-- above the belt ----------- below the belt --v
Q. Why won't the new East Room ballroom be a success?
A. Because Trump is good at holding balls, but he always chokes when he goes to them.
Trump and Putin are meeting at Mar-a-Lago for the Strategic Hypersonic-Arms Restraint Treaty. Kayleigh McEnany wants to get on Trump's good side to start her interview, so she compliments his outfit: "Hey Donald, nice top". He starts to reply, "Thanks! I was gi..." but is interrupted by Putin, who gruffly says "У меня есть имя, знаете ли!"
other examples of the tone you're going for (at anyone's expense) would be helpful. Normally I get almost all my good lines from Rabinovich, but even a wider late soviet net doesn't turn up much beyond "...and it's in Melania's handwriting"
(I agree that oestrous propaganda is unlikely to play on HN, but I must admit upon hearing the rumour that there is good money to be had in drawing commissions for Rule 34 content that the only deep-pocket collectors I could think of were Three Letter Agencies)
I think we tend to forget, that their legals will be telling them they simply don't HAVE to do this. Not, what they should think, or do, but providing the cash focussed getout: you have no obligation here.
That passivity brings them advantages. Not having to act, means choosing to "wait and see" is a low bar justifiable decision inside their role and obligations. Not what you and I might think, what they feel obligated to do.
Remember that when Apple did voluntarily explore CSAM scanning logic, the community pushed back hard. So they have recent experience to drive wanting not to act. It hurt last time.