georgie01

Unsurprising, but also surprising. 5G isn’t even of particular significance right now. I keep 5G off on my iPhone 12 Pro to save battery because there is currently no gain from using 5G.

I know technologies are developed well before they become useful, but I feel like this charade is getting old. LTE never lived up to the potential in the US but they pushed into 5G. And 5G isn’t generally reaching LTE+ potential speeds (except for mmWave). Maybe 6G will live up to the promises of LTE+

seanj said:

sdw2001 said:

I can't put this any more diplomatically:  I call bullsh*t.  

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections.  What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive.  Was that helpful?  Possibly.  How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive?  How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk."   There are so many factors and questions here.  What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more?  What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial.  Common sense would dictate that it is.  But that's not evidence.   

Unbelievable.

Random bloke on internet thinks he knows more than the researchers at Oxford University and the Alan Turing Institute. I know who I’d place my money on being right 

While what you say seems correct in theory, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who is able to think for themselves that there has been very little public expression of science regarding the coronavirus. Debate is an essential part of science, but despite that there is much conflicting information surrounding the ‘accepted’ perspective (and no concrete information supporting it), nearly all public debate is silenced. Silencing debate is not science.

The reason most debate is silenced is because managing the population is considered more important than being truthful. So we receive a narrative, not science, which we’re told is science in order to make us obedient. But in reality it’s just the latest ‘thing’ to keep us as pacified as possible.

As a result there’s plenty of reason to question any study by any group that conveniently aligns with the narrative. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist who can think for myself.

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Will we be able to uninstall the AppStore app and install one of our own choosing?

Why would you want to? Just because of ‘principle’? Whether you agree with it or not, Apple’s way of doing things makes some sacrifices for a much better overall user experience.

When I download an app from the App Store I have almost no concern about the security of it. You can say you want the right to install whatever you want on your own device (although the operating system which makes your device work doesn’t belong to you...), but that’s an issue of principle with very little actual benefit, and certainly nothing that will make a big difference in the life of 99.99% of users.

Mike Wuerthele said:

The existing section 230 disagrees with you. Twitter does not generate its own content which is the requirement to be a publisher, and even if it did, only the content that Twitter staff generated or paid would count to make it a publisher. Fact-checking, editing, or deleting user-generated content doesn't make it a publisher, and "moderation" is, in fact, required by section 230 now, and in the proposed reforms. We'll see how it goes.

Except ... that ‘fact checking’ has become more than ‘moderation’. Surely you’re intelligent enough to see this? Or perhaps you’re just not aware of what’s going on.

As one example among many, a friend of mine had his Facebook post ‘fact checked’ (i.e. censored) and the only thing it had was a link to a CDC page giving statistics on the effectiveness of mask wearing in a specific study of coronavirus cases. The CDC website, the CDC’s data itself, was considered dangerous enough to warrant censoring. If that’s not questionable enough, the idea that masks (of the type that the majority of people wear) are effective in stopping the spread of the coronavirus is not conclusively supported by any science right now.  So Facebook is censoring data from the CDC because they say it could be misleading even though how they claim it’s misleading isn’t scientifically proven. That’s called imposing an unproven opinion upon millions of people.

When a service provider is imposing their own opinions on what users post—which is absolutely what’s going on—then they become publishers. By controlling the content to fit a specific perspective they are effectively publishing content. Hiding behind ‘independent fact checkers’ doesn’t mean that’s not what’s going on. They should be neutral, all voices heard equally (according to what is legal, at least).

Whatever someone thinks of Trump as president, he’s a very successful businessman and knows how to negotiate far better than anyone of us including our favourite government leaders (anyone wanting to bring up some of Trump’s business failures please spare us your ignorance).