Nice username thats gonna be worth big money some day

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/p1m2bc/who_are_adjust_the_mobile_marketing_vendor_used/

Whatever it is, it’s been around for at least 3 years.

Is it? It’s just a forum it’s not like he’s asking the devs

Isn’t that exactly what Repubicans did with the election?

-Make a bunch of baseless claims of fraud

-“Look guys we need to do something, trust in the election process is low!”

No I get that, but this is different honestly. Look up rates of teenage depression/anxiety/suicide attempts, it’s a stunning correlation with the advent of smartphones and social media. Millenials got out just in time.

Look collusion is a thing, but it’s illegal. Grocery stores, even the big chains in the US anyways are pretty cutthroat, they aren’t making huge profits they’re fighting to survive vs Amazon and the like. Anyways my point is that the claim that costs don’t affect prices (and therefore losses from theft don’t affect prices) is just silly.

I read through the article and I agree that it is wrong for Target and other companies to blame crime for underperformance when crime isn’t the real culprit. But that was an example involving 9 stores. There are tons of examples of stores closing citing crime if you search for it. I think it’s unhelpful to hand wave all of them away as PR.

At least the US government can’t harvest US citizens social media data without a warrant (excepting all the patriot act stuff). But there is zero protection for your data from the CCP if it’s on TikTok. That’s understandably a pretty huge security concern. I can also understand China not wanting data from their citizens in the hands of American social media companies. Idk if any if it is good or bad but it’s certainly common sense on a national level.

TikTok is very heavily influenced by the CCP and could be used to collect data from Americans (probably they already are). Not wanting your biggest geopolitical rival to harvest data from your citizens is pretty understandable.

The breaking point, though, is the point when consumers will look to alternatives, e.g. a different store. As long as there are other options available, competition does usually do a decent job of keeping prices down.

So I guess your saying since stopping one theft from happening won’t significantly change that markup, you should not even try to stop theft (even if bringing down prices is a good thing for poor people who don’t steal). But by that same logic, why bother trying to reduce your carbon footprint? I mean look, if I see someone walking out of the grocery store with food I’m not gonna say anything. But I wouldn’t extent that to retail theft in general.

Theft does make prices go up though, you know? It also makes stores close in underserved communities.

Mozilla Corporation is technically for-profit, but they are committed to investing all of their profits back into Mozilla Foundation. They have no shareholders. It exists so that Mozilla can make money off of their products and reinvest it, not to make money for its executives.