> On the one hand this may help certain companies that focus on limited use of customer data thrive in Europe. On the other hand it’s one more tick against Europe for global companies deciding where to invest so expect to see some big downside for the region too as companies and investors focus elsewhere.
What global tech company can really afford not to be in Europe? Google? Facebook? Twitter?
I give directly to paypall and patreon to support creators. I couldn't give a damn about Google itself making money at that point. i block all ads, no discrimination. If you want me to support your site, ask for a donation, like the Guardian does. I don't accept ads anymore in my browser.
> Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible.
As a googler, you don't even know that your own company provides analytic tools for websites, as well as personalized integrated search for websites? ads on third party websites? webmaster tools? script cdn? font hosting? AMP cache ? ...
getting out of "google.com" doesn't mean that the user stops being tracked by google.
Tether story is extremely interesting in the crypto world because it goes against everything crypto currencies like bitcoin were supposed to be:
- it's completely centralized, a single actor emits tethers.
- it's completely opaque as it relies on the trust that the actor that emits tethers actually has the money to back the claim that 1 tether == $1, yet you cannot redeem a tether for a dollar directly. Bitfinex TOS even say that they don't have to give you dollars for your tethers, I'm not making this up.
Tether is shrouded in secrecy yet crypto traders happily trade them, despite the fishy history of bitfinex a company no respectable bank wants to make business with. How can anyone think this is going to end well?
> Bitfinex TOS even say that they don't have to give you dollars for your tethers
That bit's not entirely true. I believe it was but hasn't been since Jan 1. The actual wording is
"Tether will not issue Tether Tokens for consideration that is other Digital Tokens (for example, bitcoin), and will not redeem Tether Tokens for other Digital Tokens; only money will be accepted upon issuance, and only money will be provided upon redemption"
There are various other caveats requiring you not to be a criminal etc but that's fairly standard boilerplate.
And this guy has the audacity to boast on Twitter about how he has too much money he doesn't know what to do with it.
Well how about he gives his workers better work conditions? there are simple techniques that wouldn't even cost him much money like alternating tasks in warehouses, some tasks are less physical than others.
Clearly some here are happy the 19th century style exploitation is a reality for their fellow workers, with the same arguments as 200 years ago like "well if you're not happy go work somewhere else", like everybody has the choice.
> Difference is that tech poses itself as "new" (i.e. different from old, traditional things/companies) and its leaders (actual business magnates or your average CEO) either indirectly or directly talk about making the world/people better.
No, a very few Silicon Valley businesses pose themselves as new and its leaders talk about "making the world/people better". These aren't representative of the whole worldwide IT sector, which is no more "feminist" than the coal industry.
> Also, stories on tech (maybe because of the above?) are trendier. No one cares if a factory or finance firm have toxic cultures (because we all expect them to?).
Many of the people here are too young to remember how Wall street used to be seen as a "left wing" sector in the 90's the same way "big tech" is now. Ironically shun by leftist activists today as the "personification of the devil".
Wall St finance used to be called the "new money" sector as opposition to the "old money" which was the core of the republican elite. And the same way, some financial companies and CEO claimed to be something new and make the world better. So the irony of your statement...
It just make it is easier for extremists of all sides to find each other and build echo chambers to strengthen their ideas.
Now this article is a bit hypocritical as every journalist and news media out there is also on social media and use it as a communication and advertisement channel, just like like everyone else. NYT and co love Facebook and Twitter when it helps them bring in paid customers.
Just like sport fans, moviegoers, fooding enthusiasts or people who buy books. In every circle you'll have a tiny loud minority who behaves like crap, it has nothing to do with gaming. You'd think people who buy books have a better education and behavior? People like J. K. Rowling or Stephen King have had plenty of stalkers and death threats, King wrote plenty of books about on subject.
Because you think hooligans aren't being mean and hateful online as well? let's not even talk about political circles which have nothing to do with gaming. You are talking from you experience standpoint but you're wrong, there is way worse than gaming communities.
What global tech company can really afford not to be in Europe? Google? Facebook? Twitter?