I mean, that's the entire point, yes. Some financial transactions, at some level of scale, should not be private.
For instance, if you abolish KYC, you've just fully legalized all insider trading. Perhaps you can see that there are some conflicts of interest there. On the crypto side, KYC allows the IRS to go after traders for capital gains tax. Without it, crypto would be an easy way for the ultra-wealthy to just completely bypass taxes, since you couldn't prove that it belonged to them.
I'm not saying that the terms can't be more transparent, because they absolutely can be.
But if you have become aware of this practice and you continue to participate, you have de facto agreed to it. You can of course agree to the terms and continue to criticize them, but you don't get to sign up for a soccer game and then claim that the rules against using your hands don't actually apply to you. If you don't want to face the consequences of how distributed services like this fundamentally work, don't use them.
I mean, yes?
If you do not agree to the terms of a service, do not use the service. This is the case for essentially every system ever. You can go complain about it on Reddit or something if you like.
Yes, of course it has Neo-Nazis, because it has hundreds of millions of people and essentially every niche community has representation there. The doesn't mean it's remotely accurate to say that Instagram is "only Nazis and pedos".
The most followed user is Kim Kardashian, if I remember right, and she's targeting the most normie women possible. Nazis and pedos aren't exactly good for advertising.
This isn't to say that Instagram doesn't have moderation issues, but that isn't contradictory to the fact that Instagram is not solely composed of those kinds of users.
Have you gone on Instagram ever?
It's normies and wine moms.
The point is that it's portraying not blocking as an inherently negative thing, which isn't universally agreed upon at all. Plenty of people would say that they don't need any attention at all. It's not presenting objective in a neutral way, but rather labeling a group as bad.
Of course, it's probably fair to assume that the author has no intention of being neutral, but it's still valid grounds to criticize it as a data visualization.
I quite liked it, personally.
I imagine saying that is going to be treated as an admission of heresy here though.
Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, will become public domain in literally 13 days.
This may be a cynical view, but even if that does happen, the core ActivityPub protocol will still be intact and at worst be relegated to a small community of tech nerds, which is to say, basically the status quo.
Facebook, and literally anyone else, can already get all your content.
It would take all of a second to scrape your user page. Obviously that wouldn't grant your IP address or anything, but neither would federation.
It's publicly sitting on the internet.
I know corporate America doesn't really deserve any meaningful amount of good faith, but for whatever truth is worth, "sustainable" in a business context has essentially always meant financials. A platform like Twitch is generally going to have really high operational costs between infrastructure, network traffic, engineers, and revenue sharing with streamers, and given that Amazon doesn't operate Twitch for charity any more than you do your job for free, they need to make sure that they actually have sufficient revenue to be able to make the finances sustainable. I won't pretend to know how profitable it is, if it even is yet, but cutting employees is obviously a pretty easy lever to pull to reduce costs if your operations can get away with it.