The article says what he’s doing is clearly illegal, and backs it up with the law that he’s violating. He’s offering, through a lottery, a chance to receive payment in order to incentivize people to register to vote. CAH is probably treading close to the line, but I can’t say it’s clearly illegal. What Musk is described as doing seems to be pretty clearly illegal, to me.

Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both

Can you explain why you don’t seem to think what Musk is doing is illegal?

I see YouTube videos linked, and I remember being on this site before YouTube existed. I don’t think it has changed all that much, though.

I think you might be thinking of Cruise?

https://gizmodo.com/cruise-robotaxi-human-assistance-kyle-vogt-1850997279

I think this is true, but I also grew up without Internet or social media so maybe things were more regional as opposed to this larger shared culture those things have enabled. So that may be part of it?

Yeah, this really all feels like the carriers have dropped the ball.

Google is the only one that allows “End to end” encryption.

Allowing and implementing are not the same things. They implemented encryption in their RCS services. They don’t allow everyone to use their service, but they built and own it so that’s their right, I guess.

And practically speaking google controls the standard, they have over 800 million users out of the total possible 1.2 billion.

Can you elaborate here? How do they control the standard? Specifically, I’m not asking about their implementation of RCS, because of course they control that, but their implementation is not the same thing as the standard itself.

It might not be a monopolistic standard in theory but it is in practice

It’s widely understood that it’s difficult to implement a competent web browser. That’s why there are only a handful of browser choices. This doesn’t make HTTP a monopolistic protocol.

Saying the RCS standard is a monopolistic standard makes zero sense to me, even in practice. We are quite literally discussing another vendor entering the market. If you run a telecom and want to implement RCS, you are able to do so. If you are a phone manufacturer you are free to implement RCS in your software stack. None of this is easy, but it’s possible and so this isn’t a monopoly situation as far as I understand it. Google wanted to compete with iMessage so they built a competitor on a proprietary but open global standard, the standard which is meant to replace SMS and MMS messaging.

I’ll take that as a win!

RCS is a proprietary standard, but it is not owned or controlled by Google. They just happen to be one of the first major corporations to embrace and implement the standard.

Again, you’re still arguing from the standpoint that I’m making fun of her natural eyebrows.

Which I’m not.

You’re attacking appearances. How one dresses or applies makeup doesn’t matter in the context of the conversation. These are are matters of personal taste. Why do we need to know your thoughts on this?

I’m making fun of her shallow decision making and poor choices.

Not really, though. You’re just talking about how someone’s personal taste doesn’t align with your personal taste. This is like arguing about favorite colors. It’s a weak position to argue as it’s entirely subjective. It actively undermines any other argument you might be trying to make.

Of all the things to mention, and you’re focused on eyebrows? You sound extremely biased because of this weak argument. It gives the impression that you share this same quality of being shallow. It serves as a potential indicator that you might be unable to pick out relevant detail in a conversation, which also makes you seem like a waste of time to communicate with.

If you’re arguing another point this is detracting from that point. If you’re not arguing another point, then this insipid opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.

I appreciated your rant. I don’t really know what I’m talking about, so take this all with a grain of salt.

What you’re sort of describing sounds like a boycott of our capitalist system. In theory, if we all could be self-sustainable and didn’t need to participate in the current system just to survive, then I think it would collapse. How could it not? The billionaires are billionaires because we give up our time and labor for currency which we then reinvest in a system which transfers most of that currency to a select few at the top. If we all stopped participating where would the billionaires get their billions, and what would they even spend it on, if not our labor or products produced by our labor?

I can only speak for where I live but this kind of organizational boycott of the system isn’t really likely to happen anytime soon. It’s too difficult to organize that number of people into non-participation especially when there are not really any alternatives. It’s not even easy to get people to give up listening to a certain artist’s music if they’ve done a terrible thing. People are living shitty or difficult lives and need their creature comforts just to mentally get by. I don’t blame them. There would have to be a viable, functioning alternative already in place which could absorb the needs of a massive number of people. It would take cooperation and compassion, and I guess I just don’t see that in the cards.

Even if we did, how long would it last until the power hungry manipulated their way into building another version of the same system?

This was my interpretation as well. I frequently have weird abstract dreams, where I’m often not present or not involved, and the dreams sometimes don’t involve people at all. The ones without people are weird and hard to explain. I assumed that’s what the lower left panel is trying to show.

This would be awesome, but I just don’t see it happening this way. They have to work with the copyright holders who set those kinds of terms and who have the majority of the leverage in negotiating those terms. Unfortunately, I don’t see any reason this kind of deal would be made.

The business model is to force consumers to purchase and repurchase the same content over and over. Changing only the format, or distribution method, or platform of consumption. This kind of deal would undercut that business model.

No. I’m sorry. You can’t just say it and make it true. Please show me how Google owns RCS or prevents other developers from implementing it within their own apps.

Google doesn’t own the RCS protocol. This is like saying they own the SMTP protocol because they provide Gmail. They are just one company that has implemented the protocol in their default text message app. They built end-to-end encryption into their implementation, which is currently closed source. I’m guessing this is what you’re referring to.

Anyone can implement RCS. It may cost you some money and some time, but it is possible. That’s the difference I was originally trying to highlight.

but doesn’t play nice with apple.

This isn’t technically wrong, but to be clear, iMessage is closed source. No one can play nice with Apple, in that regard.

RCS on the other hand is a more open standard that anyone is free to implement and use. It just doesn’t come with end-to-end encryption as a part of the standard.