I honestly don’t know. True or not, though, it’s an interesting idea!

Yeah. What the hell were the plaintiffs supposed to do? How do you get proof of something like this? Break into an exec’s office? Hack an auto manufacturer’s network?

Oh, wait a sec. Evidence that’s acquired illegally generally isn’t admissible. So even those ridiculous plans wouldn’t work. I guess the best we can do is wait until the harm is done, and then hope there’s a sloppy enough paper trail to unequivocally prove exactly who did it.

Apparently, that’s MUCH better than using some common sense.

An auto manufacturer, who has no business snooping on your texts in the first place, should not have permission to keep copies of them. Ever. It’s an absurdly obvious question. The plaintiffs shouldn’t have to prove they’ve been harmed. The auto manufacturers should have to prove that their intentions benefit all customers, AND that those benefits outweigh the risks.

And no, advertising that’s specifically targeted at my perceived needs and interests doesn’t count as a “benefit”. Sorry not sorry.

I’m going to assume this judge hasn’t been unduly influenced.

This looks like a classic case of following the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law. The law seems like it’s intended to punish harmful violations of privacy. No reasonable person can conclude that the sale of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people’s private data is entirely harmless, but that’s what this judge did.

US courts often take “reasonable” assumptions into account when making judgments or issuing sentences. Just because the plaintiffs couldn’t actually prove specific damage is no reason to assume it didn’t/won’t happen.

I have no idea who those two guys in the background are, but I feel sorry for them anyway just because they’re there.

Interesting (and disturbing) contrast. I haven’t done any programming, so I appreciate the perspective!

Thank you! I was starting to wonder if I simply expressed myself poorly, but you explained what I was trying to ask about. Now I get it!

Did you mean to reply to me? You’re kind of asking what I’m asking. I wouldn’t imagine there’s a “first dose” if the website is shitty and annoying to use. Instead of dopamine, wouldn’t there be bad memories and unpleasant associations?

I don’t have an account on any of their stuff, but even I recognize that this is a nice burn.

Okay, I have no problem admitting I’m naïve on the subject. If I guessed wrong, though, what is addiction about? It’s hard for me to imagine getting addicted to something you aren’t likely to use and don’t like.

Sure, I can see people changing their mind about something once they’re already addicted, but that’s not the same thing.

I’m the last person who would leap to Meta’s defense, but I gotta ask: how, exactly, does one draw the line between a service being addictive and one that’s just well designed and pleasant to use?

I wouldn’t want this lawsuit to discourage quality web design.

I didn’t realize a B-52 had never landed in South Korea before. I would have assumed it had already happened enough times to be completely unremarkable.

No worries. These things happen.

Either you replied to the wrong comment, or I’m misunderstanding yours

No. I never tried to say it. I just plain said it…

I’d like to point out to folks that whatever your stance on the issue may be, this statement (taken by itself) is pretty funny.

Please excuse the interruption and continue.

I don’t like it one bit.

The government sees it as a strategic need to have a strong ally in the region. That view will not change, at least not anytime soon. The Pentagon considers it a national security issue, which puts it beyond politics. Unfortunately, I have to live with that.

I understand your point. The authoritarianism and lack of respect for freedom of speech was what I had in mind, not international relations.

Careful, France, this sounds like something a Trump supporter would come up with.

Yeah. Being sensible enough not to let superstition rule your life is a plus, but a lot of atheists are nothing but obnoxious people who like to be contrarians and think they’re smarter than others. That’s not a very helpful attitude, and I think that taking atheism to such an extreme that you automatically look down on theists is, well, kind of similar to being religiously intolerant. Isn’t that something we should avoid?

I also know a few smart, wonderful folks who happen to let religion play a role in their lives, and I think that’s fine. They actually use religion for its stated purpose, which is (generally speaking) to improve themselves and the world around them. They do it in a tolerant, non-evangelical way, too, that respects the beliefs of others. Yeah, they happen to believe some things I think are unnecessary, but so what? Who am I to judge, when they live such positive lives?

I also know many more people who use religion as an excuse to be willfully ignorant, hypocritical, and closed-minded. That’s the kind of religious “belief” I look down on.

Atheism can seem like it’s about anti-Christianity, because a lot of American atheists have a Christian background. They’re justifiably pissed about the lies they were taught, and the rampant hypocrisy of Christianity. They’re often very vocal, especially online.

Over time, people usually get less angry about their personal experiences, and find it easier to step back and take a broader view. Too much of any religion is a problem.

Good. I hope people and organizations keep leaving.