You’re correct. The article makes it very clear there are multiple exceptions. I guarantee not a single republican out there is only using incandescent bulbs in their homes. Obviously they’re virtue signaling for their base. Companies for a while have been making to switch to LED and they’re much cheaper than they used to be. This is where the free market really has prevailed. Most people don’t mind paying extra if it means they don’t have to change out a light bulb as often.
What if instead of taking over Twitter handle X, he had taken over Twitter handle of say NY Times. Not blocked it or suspended but straight up takeover. They’re part of that company’s brand. X May have not been important monetarily to that person but doing something like this without offering some sort of compensation signals to all other companies who use Twitter that their handle isn’t safe. This may be a unique instance because he wants the X Twitter handle for their rebranding, but it is an asshole move and undoubtedly others will be watching closely.
I agree. They are within their rights to do whatever with their database, their service. But if their decisions impact someone else’s business then they shouldn’t be surprised if someone takes legal action.
I thought being on retainer meant that they get paid to be ready to take on a case if needed and ensure they get at least partially paid for their services. I bet a major case like this would call for a whole team of lawyers all billing for hundreds of hrs of work. I don’t think a retainer would cover everything. I could be wrong though, I’m not a lawyer.
“Competition is fine” says the guy that was born into wealth and was given a huge leg up in life. Although, I really hope they duke it out in court with Meta just so they burn through piles of money needlessly.
Which is a way I’m assuming to data mine every user on the fediverse. Safe to say that anyone that connects to the fediverse via Threads will essentially expose all Non Threads user to the Meta data miners?
WTF is threads?
Interesting read. It’s always hard to read about musicians and artists we all love and see them in a bad light. Same goes for athletes or anyone in the spotlight. It’s always good to hear about celebrities that are actually good people and nice, but let’s face it, in order to become big you have to have somewhat of an egotistical personality and sometimes that means stepping on other people in the process. I don’t condone it, in fact I wish that every person who contributes to a successful venture be recognized and compensated justly. But chances are if a singular person is famous, inevitably you will find people in their wake that were either left out or hurt in the process.
Well then is it better to say that we should redefine what happiness means? Or is it that happiness means something different to each individual? Sometimes I feel like what I define as happy is really just being content to someone else. This is more of a philosophical question, or maybe more specifically a metaphysical question. What is happiness?