the fact that he could reschedule and effectively legalize marijuana
No he can’t. He can direct the DEA to look into rescheduling the drug, a process he has already started. But he doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally force them to reschedule it. He could theoretically Saturday Night Massacre the DEA into doing it, but they really wouldn’t be a good look.
Most of this entire report is patently ridiculous. They asked people who follow HRW’s social media to please send them instances of censorship on social media, get about 1,500 random examples from a self-selecting population, then publish a big expose about it.
There’s no intensive comparative analysis (statistical or otherwise) to other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past. They allege, for example, that some people didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown- is that standard policy? Does it happen in other cases? Is it a bug? They don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.
The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive portrayal of terrorist organizations with political wings like the PFLP and Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but cherry picking a couple thousand taken down posts doesn’t make that discussion any more productive in any way.
Because as it’s currently designed Apple is not handling any of the actual transactions- those are handled by the Payment Service Provider that the merchant is required to provide to be granted Apple’s permission to use the API.
If Apple opened it up to non-Merchants (who don’t come with their own PSP), then Apple would have to act as the PSP which is a much larger headache that they don’t want to deal with.
Honestly, BlueSky’s AT Protocol fixes pretty much all of these issues (save for having a single actor controlling things as for the moment it’s still in active development and not adopted by any other project).
Even if you never intend to sign up for or use their protocol, I’d give it a read- it’s a really fascinating system design:
I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how data is handled in federated systems. When an account from Threads interacts with your post or you interact with a Threads post, information is exchanged exclusively through Actions sent between the servers- never to or from your or their client and another server. It looks like this:
Client <=API=> Instance <=Action=> Instance <=API=> Client
They don’t get any information that isn’t already available publicly to any random user on your instance- no IP address or anything otherwise. Threads’ mobile app data collection has no bearing on their ability to collect information on you.
Edit: To be clear- there is theoretically a set of protocols in the ActivityPub spec that allows for direct client to server communication (unimaginatively called ActivityPub Client-to-Server), but it hasn’t been adopted by any current Fediverse software implementation that I’m aware of.
Threads’ daily app downloads have universally been in the range of 350k-700k for the past month. Mastodon’s MAU for the same time period has been 1.1 million.
More people downloaded the threads mobile app in the past three days then have interacted with Mastodon in any capacity for the past month.
Edit: Even your cited source pegs Threads’ lowest recorded daily active users at nearly half Mastodon’s monthly active users, and that was from before the app was made available in India and the EU
Mastodon was immediately dwarfed from the very first day Threads was launched. Total Fediverse MAU has been hovering a but under 2 million, Threads first day user signups totaled more then 30 million. Threads’ growth has leveled off now but it’s still orders of magnitude more massive.
They wouldn’t be able to get it even from a federated instance as long as you don’t use their frontend.
I don’t know of any major instances that have enabled any of those… And all getting around it would take is to create an account on the instance- which for instances without admin approval can be done fully programmatically anyway so it wouldn’t even require human intervention, just a few extra lines of code.
They could already get all of your profile and post info… I could get that right now through the free api for every account on this and every other thread with a couple dozen lines of code.
Edit: I’m also unclear on how they would ever get your IP- if you never use their frontends the only IP they’d have access to is that of the server your account is hosted on… Which would only be your own IP for the extreme minority who host their own instance from their personal internet connection, and Meta wouldn’t be able to tell that that’s the case anyway.
This same story was posted yesterday, so I’ll rewrite what I did back then:
Most of this report is patently ridiculous. HRW asked people who follow the HRW social media accounts to please send in perceived instances of censorship they’ve seen for the Palestinian conflict social media, they got about a thousand examples from a self-selecting population, then published a big exposé about it.
There’s no comparative analysis (either quantitative nor qualitative) to whether similar censorship happened for other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past.They allege, for example, that pro-Palestinian posters didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown. The obvious next step is to contextualize such a claim- is that standard policy? Does it happen when discussing other topics? Is it a bug? How often does it happen? But they don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.
The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive or neutral portrayal of terrorist organizations, especially concerning those with political wings like the Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but blindly presenting a thousand taken down posts like it’s concrete evidence of a global conspiracy isn’t at all productive to that discussion.