I think that deal was less about exclusivity, and more about the enforced voluntary compliance of apple to well behaved networking. In theory one phone is able to jam a radio tower. Mobile networking is heavily dependent on devices not sending data outside of their time slot.
The iPhone was sold outside the US too. The AT&T deal probably had almost no impact on those markets.
If a newspaper told you to inject bleach, they should be (and probably are) liable for that. I don’t see a reason why facebook shouldn’t be.
They are not fighting DISINFORMATION, they are fighting liabilty.
Be careful with auto-fill on page load. People manged to steal passwords thanks to this in the past. Also websites with auto-fill will know who you are even if you are not logged in.
Aren’t they already doing all of that, but just on their servers? I’d rather have them doing it on my device. There is and will be no way for us to know what they are doing with our data on their servers. But there will be people analysing what ever they do on our devices.
Same with googles FLoC, do it on my device where I have a chance to turn it off.
The outcry really should have started when people started using devices that in reality are still owned by the company that made them.
I will never understand why people should fall for spam written in broken english.
Exclusivity demands by the buying party of a license should always be invalid in front of a court. It’s liertally the same as establishing a monoply on a certain good.
The fact that you never read a story about the number of cases exploding during a lockdown should already tell you all. And there are definitively enough people willing to talk about nothing else than that.
What is a one year old expected to do in an IQ test? To not cry if they can’t suck their thumbs?
How much do I pay to contribute better?