Even if Meta doesn’t do it themselves there are likely hundreds of companies that do, and Meta can pay them for the data they want.

No. You can confirm the server received it. That’s different from a user opening it and reading it

That’s the whole point. They can force you to agree to updated TOS before they allow you to access their app.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation

Legally you have to be able to prove someone received a thing. It’s why you get served when you’re sued. An agent physically hands you the complaint (or whatever they’re called). If the papers were put in the mail the person being sued could say they never received them.

Tell me you have never worked in IT security without telling me you never worked in IT security.

To give you an actual answer, instead of pure Internet snark, the concept you’re proposing is called “security through obscurity” if you want to research it.

The TL:DR of it is it doesn’t work. If it did, all software would be proprietary and things like viruses wouldn’t exist. The source code for Windows isn’t available, but Windows gets exploited constantly.

OP was spouting a bunch of nonsense implying that Elon tanking Twitter’s value somehow was going to end up with him profiting.

In the United States, publicly traded companies have responsibilities to timely and accurately report their financials. By Elon taking the company private, Twitter no longer has those fiduciary requirements.

That’s why I was pointing out how stupid OP was being, and banging on so hard on the public vs private company thing. Elon has, by all accounts, lost tens of billions of dollars in this whole ordeal.

Because he’s lost so much money I find it incredibly ridiculous people think this is some kind of conspiracy. Less people use it, the company is looked upon less and less favorably, and it’s reputation is in tatters. If you’re trying to make a platform to brainwash people into being racist the last thing you’d want is LESS people using it

It really wasn’t.

Great. So we agree. Twitter was a pubic company that is now a private company.

Glad we worked through that

The fiduciary and reporting responsibilities of public companies are drastically different than private.

Musk bought all of the shares, then took the company private, meaning all of those fiduciary and reporting responsibilities are no longer required.

Your understanding how public and private companies in the United States work is lacking.

What is public? A 501c3? c6? A government run organization like the post office? What legal and compliance frameworks did Twitter have to follow when it was publicly traded vs now when it’s not publicly traded. In your terms it was “private” in both instances. So please, educate me. How is Twitter different now

Let’s assume that’s true.

Let’s also assume Twitter collapses under its own weight within the next year.

How does that further Elon’s secret goal of spreading his brand of fascism and racism.

The fact you admit you’re using your own definition of publicly owned, instead of the legal definition of that word in the country in which it applies, and then double down with a bunch of “facts” you don’t understand, while really pouring on the condescension, is simply an amazing execution of trolling.

The sad thing, though, is I don’t think you’re trolling. I think you believe what you just said is true.

Twitter always sucked, and always will suck. Explain to me, in pornographic detail, how this is some huge conspiracy, what the end goal of that conspiracy is, and who is perpetuating it.

Twitter was literally a public company. Musk bought all the stock and took it private.

The amount of stupidity in this comment is worthy of it being posted on X

He bought Twitter.

There are plenty of people who were affected by that

I’ll agree with the other commenter here.

Also there may not be any difference between the consumer and enterprise drives. The reason the enterprise cost more is the better warranty. But because they have different components.

Monitor the drives, modern drives are pretty good at predicting when they are dying, and replace it necessary.

So what’s more sustainable. A planet or 1 square meter of ice

This is, quite easily, one of the dumbest comments of all time.

You are free to setup and run a server, and create whatever experience you’d like. With how cheap hosting is it would probably be free for you to do for quite a long time too.

But you won’t, because you’re a consumer

Exactly. Amazon is essentially running a huge chunk of a retail business for their customers, the people buying and selling products. The reason you pay these fees is so you don’t need to run a website, build and maintain warehouses, pay staff like HR, etc etc

Yeah. And that’s fine.

Cost is a concept in retail that gets manipulated a lot. In my previous example there is no way the actual “cost” of the USB cable was $2. When you factor in employees, rent, bills, logistics, customer service, etc etc the cable was likely more like $5. Best Buy made have paid $2 for that cable, but the actual cost to sell it, taken as a whole, was more like $5.

That other $3 is essentially what Amazon is making. If you sell on Amazon they build and maintain the website, logistics, warehousing, etc etc. You can create an online store and have exactly 0 employees or logistical infrastructure. Amazon has spent literally billions and billions of dollars building all of that.

I don’t get it

I worked in retail on and off for 7 years and every store charged markup. Some products were marked up 70-80%. One place I worked was Best Buy. I regularly sold USB cables where the store cost was $2 for $32.

Amazon fees are essentially their markup. It’s impossible to run a store without it