It's also pretty naive reasoning. Author thinks a significant enough number of people are going to care? Facebook has survived- no, thrived despite multiple public scandals, some of which were far more substantive than complaining about Apple's privacy policy.
Bro I don't mean to make you the shining example of what I'm talking about but can we please try to be succinct with write-ups? The whole first half of the article could've been summarized with a single sentence: "As is typical with newbie vim enthusiasm, I spent many hours producing a 1000+ line vimrc over a long time that I eventually realized complicates my word editing process more than it helps."
In March and April, all I saw were Trump's worst moments- his blunders, his viciousness, his arrogance. My distaste for Trump heightened; I became more reactive and further triggered by his incompetence. Then, back in early June, every last thing I saw on TikTok was insane forms of rioting and the worst police brutality there was. TikTok effectively increases national attention to things like this.
The algorithm, of course, is reacting to my behavior- behavior which surely suggests that this is the type of content I "want" to see. If I go searching for basketball videos, I can teach the algorithm to populate my feed with them quite easily. But I never used the search bar.
The danger of the echo-chamber, rabbit hole aspect of the algorithm combined with TikTok potentially hand-selecting the types of content to push by default to American people to stir political dissension is very much there.
>i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will.
Ah, sure they are.
By the nature of events which preceded you and produced both your DNA and all entirely external circumstances, you are obligated to carry out your free agency in exactly the way you do.
Society will praise your virtuous stance for its anti-rape sentiments, but your views are equally or perhaps more arbitrary than his Judeo-Christian view. Note that saying a spouse has a "moral obligation" is different than saying the other spouse has the right to demand and force the fulfillment of the obligation.
I mean, it makes sense too. When my girl wants good D, I'm (morally) obliged to give it to her. That's part of the premise of a sexual relationship. I'm not going to deprive her of something that she relies on me for- after all, by virtue of our establishment of monogamous mutual exclusivity, she has to come to me for the fulfillment of that primal desire. She could go get the D from any guy she wants. I have good D, and she knows she can rely on me not to deprive her (and I mean truly deprive, not just playing hard-to-get-i-know-you-want-this deprive). The same goes for her. There is a metaphorical refusal to take no for an answer that comes with a healthy sexual monogamous relationship.