The truth is out now.

What truth? Who talks like this and thinks it means something?

at this point, I think people have mined the prompt itself?

Would be interested in any additional info on this.

Nothing alleged about it. The main app wraps your prompt in a China-friendly one

I asked it about whether the takeover of Hong Kong was met with international criticism. First I saw an answer saying yes, and a few paragraphs of examples and elaborations.

A few minutes later the answer I already saw was replaced with “sorry, that’s outside of my scope.” I think with the flood of new traffic to Deepseek, they are scaling up reviews of chat content.

Realistically what is the worst thing China is doing with your private data?

Probably mapping out the extended support networks of democratic activists in Taiwan to prepare to throw them in jail after a forcible military takeover.

but it’s a foreign actor so OOooooOOWwwwooOOOO sCaRrRey!

I love that people think this is a solid own. Lest we forget Hong Kong, or an impending hot war in Taiwan or building out extradition systems with an expanding network of countries to forcibly repatriate and torture dissidents and human rights lawyers.

You used to not have to explain why authoritarianism was bad.

Edit: I would love to know the Pro side of what happened in Hong Kong, or the forced extradition regime, since evidently I’m clearly in the wrong in thinking those were bad. What am I missing?

They all store data on Chinese servers?

Never thought I would see a version of “all lives matter” but applied to web browsers

Daily reminder that Brave uses Chromium, an open source project where all the commits are approved or denied by Google devs.

I think it’s a good special case thing but I don’t think you’re intended to host tons of stuff there as a primary account

I think the only thing you can trust is software architecture - things like E2E encryption, zero knowledge architecture, auditable code etc.

First, while the X post was not intended to be a political statement

Not intended to be a political statement? Even setting aside agreement vs disagreement, how is this (below) not a political statement?

10 years ago Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned.

Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree it’s like a textbook example of a political statement.

Well, like anything, it depends on context. In this context, it’s not crazy to be on high alert for weird politicized signals.

However, I think you made a pretty good point about its meaning in Taiwan given that this fellow is apparently from there, combined with it being his year of birth. So, context decides and in this case at least it seems pretty ordinary.

Again, no! The post was emphatically not just a remark on the nomination being good (why tf do people keep saying that).

Their comment was an overall assessment of R’s vs D’s and their respective records on regulating the tech sector in general. It rubbed people the wrong way because it’s an obviously crazy revisionist history from someone we all expected would know better.

Hooo boy, lots to unpack here. The screenshots were screenshots of the post. I’m confused why you would think looking at the screenshots of text somehow amounts to not reading them? In fact, good thing we have those screenshots because the post itself got deleted. Link to screenshot here and also the doubling down screenshots for those who need it.

Also, are you kidding me? It abso-fudging-lutely was a pretty categorical endorsement of R’s over Dems, at least on the issue of anti-trust in the tech sector. They specifically made a point about how this whole thing amounted to evidence that R’s writ large were more trustworthy than D’s.

Just a bizarre take all around, especially when tut-tutting about other people supposedly not reading it.

Exactly this. It’s not necessarily that he’s like a better enforcer, but he’s just a different type of enforcer that plays by different rules, which is to say compromised ethics, transactional exchanges, and so on. Tech companies absolutely had a difficult time under Biden, but the way they played that game was with legal filings, with negotiations where they attempt to offer something they hope will improve the perception of competitive balance.

It’s just a difference in channeling these things through rule of law on the one hand and through transactional exchanges and gestures of fealty on the other.

And I think if you think the Trump style reflects a more effective approach to handling antitrust, it’s kind of telling on yourself in terms of being able to comprehend the value of one type of transaction, but not the other.

I’m having a lot of trouble parsing any of this.

In what sense does the election being over render it not a matter of picking? Slater’s selection is a nomination, you could select one person at the expense of another, to better or worse ends, so in any ordinary english language sense, there is indeed a pick.

By contrast, Lori Chavez-DeRemer was selected for labor secretary, which has been celebrated by people who are normally Trump critics. Because there are such things as better or worse picks.

With regards of antitrust and big tech, Trump can do nothing, worse or better.

Again: what? Trump gets to appoint the DoJ’s Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, 93 DoJ Attorneys, heads of a bunch of individual departments in the DoJ which each have hundreds of staff, and will likely appoint hundreds of new judges. Not only can Trump do something, his actions will be the single most dominating force determining the trajectory of anti-trust environment.

What’s more, as a commenter above noted, Lina Kahn is a perfect example of how influential these appointments can be, as we’ve seen some of the most ambitious anti-trust action in decades.

If “big tech is not restrained” it’s going to be the same or worse, so why we wouldn’t be happy at least if that happens?

They’re probably not even right, in the first instance, that big tech will be better restrained. The elephant in the room rendering this whole line of thinking preposterous, is Lina Khan’s extremely aggressive record on this won’t be matched even by a “good” Trump appointee, and in fact has been vehemently opposed by R’s through her whole tenure.

I didn’t read a celebration of Trump as a win for human rights tout court, which could have prompted this response

Right, but that’s the point. Nobody would credit Trump as a champion of human rights, which reveals why it’s so short-sighted to uphold him or R’s as leading lights on a topic such as privacy, which falls under the umbrella of a subject matter that we’re all agreeing he doesn’t care about.

It’s precisely because of the absence of consistent commitments on every other front that also belongs in the same category, that of human rights writ large, that it’s silly to celebrate the one exception to an otherwise negative record. And it’s hard to take statements seriously that treat that totality as if it embodies a pure commitment to virtues of an ideal, free and open internet.

Right, I follow your take here as the one that makes the most sense. This makes a lot more sense as the tech companies attempting to head off a potentially adversarial relationship.

Woah… an actually rock-solid account of problems with Proton! Nicely done.

This contrasts with the incoherent conspiracy theory spaghetti that has sometimes been trotted out to make the case against them.

People don’t accidentally get on a board. The whole idea is that you actively search for and interview and even recruit people who best embody the values of your project. Then you get nominated and often voted.

It’s so all over the map, what does or doesn’t count as toughness. That criteria rewrites itself in real time like the plot of a dream.

Avoiding or ignoring questions I would have thought is weakness. Letting covid sweep the country. Falling behind China and India with a weaker labor force. Being ready to surrender to Russia. Being unable to confront the truth that you lost an election.

Any number of mixed and matched definitions could include or exclude those from operative definitions of toughness/weakness without and make just as much sense. It’s all just working backwards from tribalism.