They do have ways to manually add to browsers, apps and search tools.
If you want to manually set Kagi as a default search engine, use these settings:
• Kagi Search URL https://kagi.com/search?q=%s
• Kagi auto suggestions URL https://kagi.com/api/autosuggest?q=%s
They don’t have an app.
There are some genuinely terrible things that could be considered “a person’s personal love life”.
Kagi is quite good at it. It includes citations even, so you can check if you’d like.
Kapersky is the example you want to point at for an example of a bad actor corp capturing classified data and sending it to an adversarial government.
Not talking about collecting or sharing data.
TikTok just trended anti-political messages for a few different popular politicians and lit a match as a result.
There’s no real evidence they did.
Even if they did, that’s not a good enough reason to cut them off, though it is the reason many politicians want to; That, and the Israeli apartheid / genocide stuff.
But again, there’s no evidence ByteDance and TickTok is doing anything about those topics.
Did you read the article I linked to?
It is the NYTimes, I get it if you didn’t; Their paywall’s annoying.
Here’s a Kagi summary:
A report from the Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University found that topics often suppressed by the Chinese government, such as Tibet, Hong Kong protests, and the Uyghur population, are unusually underrepresented on TikTok compared to Instagram. This raises concerns that Beijing may be influencing content on the popular video platform, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. TikTok disputed the report’s methodology and claims of content suppression. The Israel-Hamas conflict has reignited scrutiny of how social media platforms like TikTok moderate content, with some Republican lawmakers calling to regulate or ban the app. Researchers have been urging TikTok to provide access to data to study the spread of information on the platform.
To defund healthcare you have to defund the arts.
To defund schools, you first have to defund the arts.
Why are the arts required to be done first, or at all? I’m not seeing it. They seem separate, and doable in any order.
I would think so.
It’s hard to say really, because they didn’t explicitly state “this is the only way to take someone’s gun”. But, it is a pretty straight forward interpretation of what they did say.
So yah, I would guess that they’d let Trump keep his gun also. [At the risk of reading into your question a bit.]
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in his majority opinion that the justices were only greenlighting taking guns away from people who had first been deemed by a judge to pose a danger to others.
Roberts bent over backward to stay silent on other scenarios not involving judicial findings of dangerousness.
“[W]e reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible,’” Roberts wrote. “‘Responsible’ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail.”
They narrowly defined the situation where it’s ok to take someones gun rights away. It specifically only applies when a court decides the person is a danger to another. Someone being irresponsible (ie drug user), isn’t a good enough reason to take their right to have a gun.
So on Hunter’s appeals they can point to that. And if the Supreme Court eventually hears the case, they set them selves up to confirm he should have been allowed a gun regardless of any drug use at the time.
Posting things to a site, is fundamentally different from actually owning the site; And adjusting the algorithm to promote or suppress specific ideas. Foreign governments don’t have that ability. Not in the domestic US versions anyway.
There are several reasons to do it. Lobbyist are another.
And all of those examples are about parts of the US government stopping other parts of the same government from trying to get our corporations to do what they want. China has no system to control itself like that. It doesn’t have to ask BiteDance anything; They own it and would shut it down in a heartbeat if they couldn’t absolutely control it.
There is a substantial difference between posting content to a platform trying to influence people, and actually changing the platform algorithm to surface or suppress ideas a foreign (or even domestic) state likes or doesn’t.
Lemmy certainly doesn’t have the second type. And even american commercial social media sites don’t really do it for a specific political agenda; For them it’s only about whatever’s more profitable.
The law has been introduced because of concerns TikTok might share US user data with the Chinese government - claims it and ByteDance have always denied.
That was never the major issue.
It’s about the Chinese Government tweaking the algorithm to very subtly shift public opinion. Something we know they’re doing already.
Absolutely! And we wouldn’t have to speculate or exaggerate or misrepresent to do so.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
8 years seems too frequent.
I could totally get behind something in the range of a 30-60 year revision requirement.
It’s more expensive; but look for Digital Signage.
To be fair only the first was a surprise mysterious suicide.
The second was sick for years and died because of that.
Good on them! This is how it’s supposed to work.
Do the math on how much they made breaking the deal/law. Then round up and have them pay that back.
It feels better than doing nothing.
If you can convince yourself you’re not doing nothing.
I’ve never been that good a liar.
I just revoked all it’s data permissions. That’s good enough in the mean time.
That’s the other way of saying the same thing.