| ▲ | felooboolooomba an hour ago |
| Meta has spent $2B on verification lobbying. Very successfully it seems. In 1-2 years, you won't be able to browse the internet without scanning a body part and providing a ID for your ass. https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh... |
|
| ▲ | iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| While your post is joking in tone, depending on how much we push back now is the exact level of delta between actual future and 'drink verification' copypasta[1]. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/1dfea32/drink_ve... |
| |
|
| ▲ | teeray 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I really wish there was a way for the electorate to preempt the votes of their representatives, so this kind of lobbying would be less effective. Sure, they might try carpet bombing the airwaves with PSA campaigns, but if the people really really don’t want what the lobbyist is selling, they would still be able to rip the ballot out of their congress critter’s hands and change the vote. |
| |
| ▲ | voakbasda 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I would settle for representatives that actually represented the interests of the people rather than those of the wealthiest and their corporations. | |
| ▲ | mothballed 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ballot initiative. Californians tried that to stop "gay marriage" (Prop 8) so the courts just told the people to fuck themselves and overturned it. Again in South Dakota for legalizing marijuana, the voters voted in favor by special initiative so the state just overturned it. |
|
|
| ▲ | walrus01 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| (13 years ago) https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/632877-halo-4/66477630 |
|
| ▲ | masfuerte an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My mother tried to buy something on Amazon yesterday. It wouldn't let her check-out until she'd entered a code sent via WhatsApp. Which she doesn't have and doesn't want. She'll be buying her tat on eBay in future. I dream that Amazon will lose lots of sales and backtrack, but I don't suppose they will. |
| |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Which country was this? I’ve never known Amazon requiring WhatsApp. It uses SMS a lot. The only service I’ve used which does offer WhatsApp as a form of identification is PayPal. But even that is just one of many different authorisation options. I don’t have WhatsApp either and never once found that to be a limiting. So I wonder if the experience your relative was having is more nuanced than suggested. | |
| ▲ | dude187 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure it was Amazon? Sounds like a scam | |
| ▲ | walrus01 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you sure it was actually via whatsapp, and not just a six digit code sent via regular SMS to the phone number on record for her account? It's possible whatsapp on her phone has simply hijacked the SMS client functionality and set itself as the default. | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > "WhatsApp on her phone" GP clearly said she doesn't have WhatsApp. | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If I had a dollar for every time I've seen an older person that doesn't even know what application they're running, or can't tell the difference between the content of a website inside a browser window and an application that runs natively on their computer. I read what the GP wrote, I'm saying there's a non zero possibility she's misunderstanding something. It seems like something you have to specifically choose, on the amazon account side. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeI... | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I choose to not call a GP a liar or too thick for being unable to differentiate between apps :) I also chose their presumed first hand statement than your unrelated experience with unrelated third parties. Your point re: having to subscribe to WhatsApp notifications, if we're staying in the realm of "what ifs" and looking for the awkward but possible ways to discredit the claims, I can believe that she was enrolled without being asked. I've seen at least one person complaining about that exact scenario. Cheers! |
|
| |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | “which she doesn’t have and doesn’t want” |
| |
| ▲ | dude187 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure it was Amazon? Sounds like a scam | |
| ▲ | NuclearPM an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is a tat? | | |
| ▲ | seanhunter an hour ago | parent [-] | | “Tat” means miscellaneous junk. That said, the anecdote is made up or important details have been elided to make it sound more interesting than it is. Amazon doesn’t depend on whatsapp for 2fa. You can configure amazon 2fa to send an SMS and it’s possible that the poster’s mother has misconfigured her phone to claim that it needs whatsapp to read the sms 2fa message but I highly doubt even that. When I look on amazon it allows passkeys, regular TOTP like with DUO authenticator or google authenticator or whatever or SMS with a backup of sending the TOTP code to the registered email on the account. Whatsapp isn’t even an option. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Meta has not spent $2 billion on ID lobbying. That bogus number came from a complete AI slop Reddit post that was later removed. That’s why the only references you can find to it are from sites like your gadgetreview.com link that repost clickbait without fact checking anything. |
| |
| ▲ | nottorp an hour ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't matter what they spent excatly but it's in their direct interest to raise legal moats for competitors. Kind of like what Allegedly Open AI tried with the "AI will kill us all" threats. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > It doesn't matter what they spent excatly If the number didn’t matter then the comment above wouldn’t have led with it to make their point. The flaw in the original study was that someone started with a premise that Meta was at the heart of this and all spending could be traced back to Meta. They made Claude generate a report but they didn’t read any details, so they didn’t notice that Claude couldn’t access the actual documents. So it started guessing and hallucinating until it came up with the scary number that Meta was spending $2B on lobbying. The entire premise that Meta is driving this with $2B of lobbying is an AI hallucination. Reddit obviously is adding login gates to combat AI scrapers. | | |
| ▲ | nottorp an hour ago | parent [-] | | > he entire premise that Meta is driving this with $2B of lobbying is an AI hallucination. I guess the $2B is hallucination. But it makes sense for them to do the "think of the children" lobby. | | |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW an hour ago | parent [-] | | >But it makes sense for them to do the "think of the children" lobby. Why? It seems more like that’s baseless speculation with an agenda. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Scubabear68 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I disagree a little bit, but only for this reason: the amount matters because it is invariably very, very small compared to the revenue/profit of the company and the impact the lobbying has. It is shocking what politicians will do for just five or six figure donations to their campaigns. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dzhiurgis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And ~20 years ago computer riddled with porn malware was kinda normal. Times change, so does certain expectations. |
|
| ▲ | uhhhhwhaaaa an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I would view a website that requires users to go through a lengthy verification process. Given all the astroturfing from companies and governments, this would give a bit of trust. |
| |
| ▲ | antihipocrat an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Would it? Or would it just open up another revenue stream for websites? Verified corporate accounts sure, but with prices set per number of usernames per account, billed monthly. | |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wasn't twitter/x meant to be that? Pay and verify to enter members club. Didn't quite take off all while destroying goodwill that blue badge used to have. |
|
