dessant

The problem starts when the user has not been educated about the potential drawbacks of enabling such a feature. The privacy.resistFingerprinting option is the leading cause for angry Firefox users and unwarranted negative reviews on my part, despite being an obscure feature that can only be enabled from config.

Things will break in unexpected ways, while web developers are the ones expected to spend their time offering support for a browser that has been rendered broken.

They need to be very careful about how these features are presented, and evaluate how they affect the entire web ecosystem.

The discrimination of one group of people does not lessen the need to be just with a different group, and it doesn't absolve Facebook.

You do realize that people's lives are being impacted, right? Running services of this size comes with responsibilities, and not just to your shareholders, but to society. You can't drive competitors out of business, then restrict access to services that have become essential.

You shouldn't argue that a farmer who was kicked out from Facebook for absolutely no reason should no longer have the right to access a wider variety of local offers for farm equipment on Facebook Marketplace, or have a better chance to sell their produce.

And you shouldn't argue that people are destined for this fate for the rest of their lives because of a primitive algorithm put in place by people who have no morals.

They are not in their right. They are abusing their position, and they are harming people.

Is Craigslist a universal service available around the world? I'm welcomed by this message when visiting the site:

> Your request has been blocked.

> If you have questions, please contact us.

There isn't always a good alternative for a service that arbitrarily denied you access. Facebook Marketplace has replaced classifieds in many places, and being denied access to the service can negatively impact people's lives.

I see you have your priorities sorted out. It has to be made illegal in the sense that its illegality should be recognized by a court, because it is plain discrimination.

They need to be taken to court, and this practice has to be made illegal. A service should have a valid reason for banning someone, otherwise we will end up with a group of people that are perpetually discriminated and punished by AI for no reason.

Blocking your Facebook account can lead to losing access to support groups and local marketplaces that may be important to people in need, and it is absolutely disgusting that they are allowed to kick people out for no reason.

> But designers have learned to get around this law and are using different design techniques to make users accept all cookies (trackers) anyway.

These companies are not getting around the law, they are simply breaking the law. If a consent popup allows you to accept all tracking immediately, but requires an additional step to opt out of tracking, then it is illegal under GDPR.

We don't need to plead to UX designers, but immediately report companies that don't have a "Reject all" button next to "Accept all", and only show a "More options" button that leads to a maze of settings for opting out of tracking.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/21/23035289/google-reject-al...

> Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems here.

I'm sure that will be consolation to the growing number of victims whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed when an overworked reviewer or an algorithm allowed to go rampant kicked out their products from the app stores where the overwhelming majority of users could discover them.

Your definition of monopolies and applicable antitrust rules is divorced from reality, and from the legal framework based on which these monopolies have been repeatedly fined, and will be forced to open up their platforms.

In case you decide to upload a billing statement on Amazon, do not send it as a text PDF, but export the document to an image and convert it to PDF. Their systems appear to have trouble parsing text in a PDF and you may receive an automated rejection, while images are processed without issues.

I've had the same issue with my account and I have found this solution on the web after several automated rejections and failed attempts to contact Amazon.

Exactly, it's perfectly fine to not report a bug and pay for a different product instead. The issue starts when we attribute this to not having the needed skills to report a problem, and we defer the work to our friends. Many of us have that acquaintance who is suddenly capable of doing basic things when you stop offering them your time.

If you have had the skills to write this comment, you have the skills to submit a bug report.

Rectangle has a simple bug report template, and maintainers would probably guide you if you'd have trouble providing the requested information.

  macOS version:
  Rectangle version:
  Logs if applicable (In Rectangle menu, hold option, "View Logging..."):

Maintainers are used to receiving barely understandable bug reports written in broken English or a foreign language by non-technical users, and the issue can usually be debugged if the users are willing to follow directions and respond to questions.

The extension API is mostly supported on all platforms, but certain features are not available everywhere, and implementation bugs are frequent. In the case of Safari regressions have also been present in almost every browser update.

You could catch such issues early by setting up a billing alarm.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudWatch/latest/monitori...

Amazon seems to have started to reach even for pennies. I have been a light user of AWS services for the past several years, and my monthly bill was usually below 0.2 USD. They never bothered to take such small amounts from the registered card. Last month's 0.14 USD bill was the first one I had to pay. :)

The experiences of others could be vastly different than yours. A possible answer: the developer has been throwing away bread, and couldn't easily find their favourite bread in smaller quantities in a city in India.

The aim is not for everyone to quit these companies, but for enough people to refuse to build and maintain the harmful components of their systems so that these companies are forced to change. Regarding my projects, they'd be just as useful if Google and Meta would cease to exist tomorrow, but again, that isn't the point.

> Perhaps by working there, people believe they can be that change?

We're talking about highly intelligent people, at least some of them understand that the code they maintain sometimes performs actions that are illegal. They could lift their fingers from the keyboard when they recognize that something is not right. They could choose to not be complicit.

Why are many of you still working for Meta and Google? I imagine you're well aware of all the harm they've been causing to society.

We may never be able to counter or reverse the effects of their relentless efforts to normalize corporate surveillance.

I'm sure you haven't ended up working for Meta just because you couldn't find a job at a less destructive company.

You have a leverage, you could refuse to participate in this, so why are you still writing code that harms people?

I've skimmed your post, and I honestly feel like the content is not the main issue here, but the fact that it was written and published. You could share how you prefer to interact with people if the need arises, preferably by addressing them directly about the points that are relevant for your interactions, and without giving them the impression that you've handed in a list of preferences.

That kind of consent popup is illegal in the EU, please report them to your local DPA. Rejecting data collection must be just as easy as accepting it.

Also watch out for the use of "legitimate interest". I have seen banks trying to deprive customers of their right to refuse data collection, data sharing and marketing messages, claiming legitimate interest.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/02/europe_iab_decision/

> Freedom of speech is of the highest priority for me.

When you will be the one that is being targeted by those symbols, and by the people who adore them, you may develop a more nuanced set of priorities.

This is the same team that brought attention to Opera's predatory lending apps: https://hindenburgresearch.com/opera-phantom-of-the-turnarou...

Host based content blockers have no future. Ad companies have been moving to first-party ad delivery in the past few years, and YouTube serves ads and videos from the same host.

Edit: nevermind, I've completely misread your comment to be about Pi-hole :)

And you did not share a picture of your bird.

Here is one: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fgiMlnbDN6I/hqdefault.jpg

It could be specified that only the free version is open source. You may also experiment with open sourcing some paid features too, possibly with some delay after the release if you're concerned about forks eating into your profit.

I think the fear of forks is often overblown in this context, especially with consumer facing software. You have a huge advantage in terms of expertise and an established user base, and people will tend to pick your project over a fork, even if you open source everything and publish a paid package from the open source code. Those who are usually willing to pay for software will buy it for the convenience of not having to fiddle with the source code after every update, and to support the development of the project.

You have to appreciate how much effort goes into creating this piece of software, everything from the app to the changelog looks like a work of art.

I think your definition of open source is a bit corrupted, and skewed towards expecting people to work for free in perpetuity. The Lunar repository contains open source code, and you should not expect it to compile without errors, nor should you expect maintainers to accept patches.

They don't owe you anything, and they already gave you more than most developers will do through their entire careers. I think it's perfectly understandable that the developer tries to find ways to make such a high quality project sustainable and profitable in the long term, and it won't help anyone to diss on them.

You can ask for anonymous feedback directly in the app instead of emailing users.

But who will even need Better Call Saul when you'll be able to watch local exclusives, like Swiss Prince.

They did not ask for consent to set up a payments profile during age verification.

Though what you're describing would also be illegal. GDPR does not allow requesting consent for such broad data processing just to fulfill a legal requirement to verify the user's age, and then denying access to the service if the user understandably refuses to give consent.

They are lying. I have recently verified my age on YouTube with a credit card, and they've created a payments profile without my consent. I have discovered what happened a couple of weeks later when I've signed up for Google Cloud and my payment data was already listed in the form of a payments profile that could be selected.