They lost in court, and were found to be a Monopoly. The solution is they tell the court, "sorry we will stop abusing our behaviour now", and then it's just all good?
Meta just had to make a settlement in a major case that is bad for them. That doesn't look like the "donations" are working very well.
And yes, that settlement is bad for them. What nearly every commenter here in the threads about it overlooked is that it is not the only case against Meta. There are still several cases from governments below state level against them, and several thousand individual cases.
Almost all the vast amounts of material the plaintiffs used in the recent case, including a massive amount of internal Meta documents plaintiffs got in discovery, material from depositions, material from experts, legal arguments, and more can now be used in those thousands of other cases.
Thousands of small plaintiffs have just been handed a fully loaded anti-Meta weapon built using the vast resources of 47 state Attorney General's offices. Meta season is now open and they are going to be trying to doge Meta hunters who just got a big upgrade from the bows and arrows they hunted with before.
And how exactly are they working? The DOJ didn't drop the case or withdraw its request for a breakup. And Judge Brinkema is the Clinton-appointed judge who just blocked Trump's 1.6B anti-weaponization fund, so it's not like she's in the administration's pocket.
I think this is a general misunderstanding of how common law legal systems work.
The extent to which these are or are not generalized is decided by judges based on the merits of individual cases, and while a written law might sound broad the way it's interpreted is up to the accepted precedence.
I suspect a porn site would be ok because it's clearly labelled, and isn't trying to entice kids to engage with it. However if you're social platform deliberately trying to increase engagement with under 18s, and then promoting sexual content to them...
I've occasionally written comments about the difficult of achieving proof-of-useful-work mechanisms and I should probably find or write a standard post about this question.
In order to be as decentralized as Bitcoin and related PoW mechanisms, a proof-of-work mechanism should have
* the ability to create an unbounded number of instances of the problem deterministically from numeric seeds
* the ability to scale difficulty up and down using a difficulty parameter
* in a way where anyone can easily confirm that a given problem instance corresponds to a given seed, and anyone can easily confirm that a given solution correctly solves a given problem instance
I'm not aware of a proof-of-useful-work mechanism that meets these criteria. (I'm also not aware of an argument that it's impossible to have one. Zero-knowledge proofs might actually go far toward making it possible in the future. but it's kind of complicated.)
Tailwind just happens to be a common way to write CSS.
If Tailwind didn't exist people would just be writing the same article about {{ insert most common css tool here }}
Most people create generic similar looking websites, and most people that making a new website today use Tailwind. Correlation is not causation, and linking the two in any meaningful way is just a pointless discussion.
Tailwind is just the latest iteration of people trying "real" CSS, discovering that it still sucks, and coming up with something with better abstractions than the last iteration of attempts to replace CSS.
Everything else is just people using a default configuration instead of building their own.
The issue is that problem one is real, but not in a way that's beneficial to other advertising products.
Search, social and app store ads are over rated in that a lot of brands should probably decrease their investment, but things like programmatic display ads are absolutely not under rated. The correct number of dollars that should be spent on those placements is close to zero.
- Search ad pricing is inelastic and auction based (supply goes down price goes up).
- A jump in traffic to DuckDuckGo does not mean Google is experiencing a decline in search volume. Number of queries per session has increased since launching AI Overviews.
> Search ad pricing is inelastic and auction based (supply goes down price goes up).
False. Advertisers have budgets and ROI targets. If Google cannot compete people will get their clicks elsewhere.
> A jump in traffic to DuckDuckGo does not mean Google is experiencing a decline in search volume. Number of queries per session has increased since launching AI Overviews.
But it does produce lower ROI for advertisers (in this case: CTR goes down because my ad is being shown to more people). Once user is on my landing page, my conversion rate is fine month on month (±1%), but my CTR on google got sharply worse by 5% since, and if it goes much further I'll stop completely on Google.
I doubt I am alone: Maybe others will jump ship sooner and the price will recover (demand goes down) but in either event Google is less net revenue, and given how aggressive their sales pushes have been I think it could be that big
Luxury car makers should look to handbags for inspiration. If Ferrari wants to expand the market and reach new customers they shouldn't be making something that looks like an upbadged BYD.
It's like if Hermes started making a Jansport backpack, absurd. Instead they sell lower cost, but still premium designs like the Picotin. The Lamborghini Urus might be one example.
