Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 2:30 pm And is such a blatant rip off of Twitter, including using many former Twitter employees, that a lawsuit is already being discussed.

On Threads, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone posted that "no one on the Threads engineering team is a former Twitter employee - that's just not a thing".

TheCatt wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 2:36 pmOr is it?

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:03 pm Threads is such a copy of Twitter, a lawsuit will be interesting either way.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:52 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:03 pm Threads is such a copy of Twitter, a lawsuit will be interesting either way.

Can't copyright ideas. I doubt there's much/anything here to sue about.

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:55 pm Considering it operates almost exactly like Twitter, I'm sure there's something there. However, that's for lawyers to figure out. I wonder if the code is similar?

TheCatt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:42 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 6:55 pm Considering it operates almost exactly like Twitter, I'm sure there's something there. However, that's for lawyers to figure out. I wonder if the code is similar?

As long as the code wasn't actually stolen, it can be the EXACT same. Independent creation is fine.

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:45 pm So different from music/movie/book/art laws?

TheCatt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:52 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:45 pm So different from music/movie/book/art laws?

Independent creation is a legit defense in ALL areas of copyright defense. I think that was a part of the defense that Ed Sheeran used.

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:36 pm This part of the law seems so subjective.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 9:20 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:36 pm This part of the law seems so subjective.

Hard to prove... or disprove.

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 2:30 pm Threads gets to 70M users in two days.

GORDON wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 4:49 pm Interestinger, having to supply a valid form of payment could be how we implement my much needed "identity bit" project in order to eliminate anonymity on the Internet, which every intelligent person knows we badly need.

I’ve previously spoken out against the idea. A decade ago, as a steering committee member of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace and the Identity Ecosystem Steering Group, I argued against a proposed national identity system as a violation of privacy.

But I’ve changed my mind, in part because privacy as we once knew it no longer exists. Social-media platforms, along with other Big Tech companies such as Google, Apple and Microsoft, collect and store vast repositories of our data, including emails, text messages, call logs, photos, documents, calendars, friend lists, locations, finances—you name it. Much of this data is already available to law enforcement and government officials. The Edward Snowden revelations in 2013 exposed our government’s mass surveillance practices, not only of suspected terrorists and lawbreakers but also of millions of private individuals.

Thanks to the Cambridge Analytica breach in 2018, it is estimated that 5,000 data points on every U.S. voter are already circulating online. But tracing someone’s identity doesn’t require nearly that many data points. Massachusetts Institute of Technology research on credit-card purchases has shown that it takes four basic data points on transaction dates and locations to identify 90% of people in a pool of 1.1 million people.