To be fair, most of the chaos is done by the devs. And then they did more chaos when they could automate their chaos. Maybe, we should teach developers how to code.
No because you purposefully crafted one that is not BB anywhere near similar to what was being discussed. Being obtuse generally means you’re wrong and know it but don’t like the truth.
The thing is that so many people are used to doing whatever they want from behind the safety of their screen and are now able to do a lot of things they don’t want anyone to know about. Now the law and common sense is catching up and we’re starting to see things we take for granted in the physical world are coming to the digital world. And I think a lot of people are scared of not being able to do what they used to or being found out for doing it.
Plus, and doing what you suggest but in a country where board directors don’t need to be public really solves it.
While we may be smart, a lot of us are extremely pedantic about tech things. I think for many if they did nothing it would wind them up the wall while doing something the annoyance is smaller.
As a customer who has managed to fall in between cracks quite a few times. I would say N26 customer service needs some serious work.
At one point they literally lost some of my money and then said it was returned but I wouldn't be able to see a transaction for it because there wasn't one. That is probably the worst but other times have seen me on the phone arguing about stuff that really shouldn't need arguing about.
I like the idea but having people give you their username and then generating the password for them is clearly a security risk since it's easy for that to be hacked and the save the passwords it's generated for people.
Maybe I'm not meant to see the change as I'm an adult but the only change I saw was Google Suite repeatedly telling me that under 18 year olds weren't allowed to use the service. So just denying them access to things has changed.
Some of us value our time. And this is not a techincal project it's an end user project. So as an end user I want to know quickly if it's worth my time. Even on a techincal project I want to know a rough overview within a minute or so of reading. Marketing is all about giving people the info they need fast. Marketing is about selling the benefits and telling of the pains it solves. If you're unable to do that for your project, why did you build it?
And I think the person who spends their time reading techincal documentation to decide if a social network is worth using is probably sadder than the person who goes and reads the about page. Not got much else to do?
Make a goddamn effort to figure out why someone's project is worth time investigating? Literally, that landing page has a video and links to articles. I don't want to spend minutes watching an ad. I went to the about page and read the info I should have read next to the video and understood what was what in 10 seconds.
Expecting people to make an effort to find out if a product/project is useful to them is basically asking not to have as many users. Basically, you just wasted your time building the product.
GPL is copyleft, they're mainly doing additions and modifications to code that is GPL. They have to publish their code. I believe they try to be sneaky and hide how they add it but it's all open source.
Snap, Tiktok, Pinterest, and even twitter were never competing for the space that Facebook has. The main space Facebook has is social advertising and there is no competitors and anyone tries to enter that market gets attacked by Facebook since Facebook runs it. Try starting a company that will allow you to buy influencer ads on Instagram and uses the API the influencer can grant to you to correctly identify how much money to pay the influencer. Facebook will remove your API access the minute it realises you're trying to do advertising and they're not getting a cut. Facebook are very open that their problem is they're not making any money on it. We understand their reasoning but it's againist the law to then sue companies for trying to get public data and the other attacks. If Google can't rank it's own products higher in google search Facebook shouldn't be allowed to remove API access solely because you're providing a service they don't even provide and don't even want to provide.
Chances of people dying from my web app is super slim. Chances of people dying because I bladly wired their house is and it caught fire is a lot higher.
Chances of me dying while developing my web app is super slim. Chances of someone frying themselves with wiring something up when they don't know how is a lot higher.
> Courts only said "If your server responds to an unauthenticated GET request, that's on you". Linkedin is free to stop providing that data or move it behind a login wall, they just don't want to because it helps them with SEO. Contrast that with these plugins that are absolutely accessing data behind the user's login.
Yes, exactly. Basically saying if LinkedIn was providing the data they couldn't block the data for specific people. In contrast, these plugins are collecting data that someone has chosen to make available to them. This is Facebook attempting to stop people from giving data to their competitors. This is anti-competitive. Overall the LinkedIn case said that if the user made that data available then that is on them. Not that it was an unauthenticated request, but that the data was made public and there was no attempt to bypass any privacy filters.
> Also with regards to the antitrust assertions you make, Facebook is absolutely not required to share their data with anyone. People give their data to FB, FB can do what they want with it (as long as it's within the ToS). Facebook can't stop me from also giving my data to someone else outside the platform, but they do not have to facilitate that process in any way.
One of Facebook's services is to provide that data to other services so you can use those services with that data. Saying no you can't share that data and not provide you that data in export is well, anti-competitive. This is saying "No, we don't want you to give those people that data." This is anti-competitiveness. Suing companies and preventing them from competing is predatory. You make claims that Facebook doesn't have to do these things, I feel like Facebook should be forced to allow these things. Just like we force Facebook to do other things like delete user data or make user data available (which it actually isn't doing completely last time I checked because you can't export your data and then have the exact same data on your own system.)
>This isn't a case of users knowingly using a tool to scrape data for their own use, the users installing the extension are, at most, mules, for the extension makers.
I feel it's reasonable for the average person to figure that a plugin that pays them for using Facebook and Twitter is paying for the data generated from those sessions. There is already a case with LinkedIn where courts are allowing data scraping even though LinkedIn disallows it and forced LinkedIn to stop blocking it.
I feel like this is a case Facebook should lose. Facebook wants complete ownership of the data from Facebook for marketing purposes because obviously if they're the only ones that have the data they have a monopoly. But preventing others from gathering competing data seems to be a breach of Antitrust. And Facebook execs will openly admit this is what they're doing. They've shut down multiple influencer related companies who completely backed down from a cease and desist from Facebook. And they're refusing to allow anyone to grant influencer agencies access to their data. This is Facebook telling people who they can give their data to. As well as Facebook saying companies can't scrape public information and then sell the statistics. And statistics can't be copyrighted.
Well the difference between "hey my dad works at Xbox and will ban you" and this is this is now past tense. So it would be a case of you getting banned on Xbox and someone going "Yea that was my dad".