jdw

I was against the proposed Apple CSAM features because, even though the risk was low, there was still the change it could basically "call the cops" on someone, even by accident.  However, I am not averse to the blurring of nudity as mentioned by the article because it doesn't secretly phone home or otherwise call the cops on the user.  Some naughty people who send those kinds of photos won't be happy, but since I don't do that, it's obviously a non-issue for me.  And while I don't engage in other illicit activities regarding kiddie porn either, the fact it potentially could alert authorities to target a given iPhone user keeps me dead set against it.

So go ahead a blur naughty photos, Apple!  Just keep the cops and prosecution out of it.  Seems like that is the case here, so it doesn't bother me that this could be the precursor to something else.  When that something else arrives, we the consumer can evaluate it at the time.  For now, no objections from me.

jimh2 said:

Nice clickbait making one think Apple had done this. 

No educated person would interpret the article as such, and believe me, I know full well what click-bait is and hate it.  When I read the headline I immediately thought it was yet another case of theft by either the carrier or a thief who otherwise meddled with the goods during transport.  That seemed very clear to me from the get-go.

I read the article, understand the article, but still dislike that particular emoji tremendously due to all the changes in society that have been occurring over the last 20 years regarding gender and how people "identify."  The line which says "The level of vitriol and outrage I have seen surrounding something as innocuous as an emoji has been awful" really says it all.  That line explains that the article was written (if not but on a subconscious level) to combat certain reactions that the author saw from others.  But that fails to realize that "outrage" is the fuel that fires CHANGE (of any type) in society.  

One can argue that it was "outrage" that led to the LGBTQ+ movement, and there is of course "outrage" on the opposing end of the spectrum too.  It is impossible to get ALL people to be so bland as to never express "outrage" over key principles they hold dear.  The author holds his own principles so dear that he expresses his own form of outrage over others in society who express their outrage. The reader of the said article will sometimes agree and other times not.  We are seeing that in the comments now.  

Thankfully, we educated people who are in control of our emotions can calmly and intelligent agree to disagree.  Nothing will dissuade me from my course anymore than the article author can be dissuaded from his, even in a million words of text.  And there you have it.  We can at least rest somewhat comfortably in knowing there are so many emoji now that the few which inspire outrage in us can often be overlooked.  Out of sight, out of mind.

lkrupp said:

Wait as long as you like. Not going to happen. Current monitors that cost less than an iMac are not all that good. An Apple monitor for $1299? No way.

Now, now...  It wasn't that long ago I was debating the SD haters in this forum who heatedly proclaimed "Apple never looks back!" and all that.  As you know, the SD card is back, and I think the about-face is a beautiful thing.  Rather than concede their mistake though, the SD haters continue to make silly remarks like, "I don't understand it.  Who uses SD cards these days?"  LOL.

$1299 is not cheap for a good display these days.  It would make sense for a smaller sized display, depending on the features, and I don't see that as being priced too low to be a good quality monitor.  Having multiple sizes at different price points would be nicer than a higher priced one-size-fits-all model.  It would be a refreshing break from the past where there was basically just the 27" Cinema display for a long time (I still own two of those, with Thunderbolt).

The pressing question is, how much will the consumer STAND cost?  

If true, most Americans are sadomasochists.

The bigger problem isn't FaceBook.  It's Chronic Complaining.

I say stop the complaining and simply stop using FaceBook (or any other free service) if you dislike it.  To continue using a free service for fun and then complain about it endlessly is evidence of a serious personal problem, not evidence of a FaceBook problem.

Even more laughable is the fact that FaceBook users are such digital drug addicts that even Big Brother is trying to step in a protect those digital-drug users from their own addiction, treating FaceBook as if it is the bad guy.  The real bad guy is the one who has the addiction problem but refuses to admit it.