svrtknst

> I'd be much more comfortable with this if they were suggesting multiple different providers.

I don't see anything saying that they won't. They might only offer ProtonVPN for all of time, but I could also see them adding additional providers down the line. In any case, I'm imagining that the vetting process is relatively costly to perform and keep up, and I'd trust Mozilla more than myself to do it.

No, I agree at least. I mean, it was a bad move and thoroughly short-sighted, but then again - what's the score?

One slight privacy infraction from Mozilla, vs. the countless others from Google, or Facebook, or whatever. It wasn't a good move, it also wasn't as bad as people make it out to be, and it's defeinitely better than any competition.

Same here. I like Mozilla, and if they can bring me a qualitative email service and VPN on top of a great browser and the MDN, I'm psyched.

Here's to hoping that they also develop an e-mail product to replace Googles Inbox...

What rules in St. Benedict are comparable to "no coloreds" in your mind? Or do you find them unacceptable due to the context, i.e. that they are part of a larger religious text?

> how about not-tech-specific rules around data sharing transparency

Such as... a General Data Protection Regulation? GDPR is not "tech-specific", it applies to technical solutions, yes, but also to business requirements and administration, and non-technical data collection. One non-tech consequence here is that stores are encouraged not to ask your SSID equivalent, since that exposes deeply personal information to others nearby.

> Just require details on what's shared and with whom for those seeking it

That's a big part of GDPR, actually. You're allowed to collect data, with certain rules about transparency and anonymization, and as long as there are reasonable motivators for collecting it. Within reason and with exceptions, I'm sure, but nonetheless, that's a big part of it.

> You're gonna find most people don't care anyways

I'm willing to bet few people cared about regulations on traffic safety and alcohol as well. That doesn't mean that regulations to hold bad actors responsible aren't necessary, as has been proven countless times through leaks, sometimes very large or sensitive leaks.

> And please please learn from EU mistakes and establish enforcement mechanisms.

What do you mean by this? What "mistake" has the EU made? They have enforcement mechanisms in place to target companies for violations of GDPR. It will take time to work out the details and establish case law, but I don't see anyway around that. Even if you introduce "small" regulations, companies will fight the charges or fines that you bring to establish precedent.

> If we all have to hire lawyers and/or compliance assistance, then the first step is too large.

You all don't. Larger corporations probably do, but that's unavoidable. GDPR was announced something like two years before implementation, and published in a lot of different ways beforehand. There were compliance consultants, yes, but there were also PSAs, education, advertisement, easy-to-read summaries and tons and tons of material to read up on.

> heavy-handed government regulations on the internet bring more bad than good

The view of pre-GDPR internet as something free of regulation, or free from government involvement, or as nothing but a land of milk and honey seems to me like a pretty severe case of rose-tinted glasses, especially if we're talking the last 10-15 years.

There have been a lot of issues with the internet, even without mentioning all the severe privacy breaches, or breaches that are a concern for national security.

I've used Firefox tracking protection since it was release, and I definitely have had occasional issues with "honest" sites not loading. Not super often, but it's happened.

Not be particularly salty, but Hacker News is not where I expected to face a slew of downvotes without commentary.

Anyone care to point out what I said that was so offensive, or nah?

This is... not an easy matter.

To begin with, I wouldn't be surprised if this is fueled by fringe right wing interests, similar to GamerGate etc. Second, I am generally in favor of CoCs and changes that aim to elevate minority groups. Thirdly, it's often hard to take "we have no problems with diversity" at face value when it comes from those favored by a lack of CoCs.

All that said - This, to me, seems like a hard call to make. An updated CoC seems great, and I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of it, and the need for it. On the other hand, I find the lack of definition and process it entails problematic. Hopefully it's a "two steps forward, one step back" situation and not the other way around.

Aw fuck.

I like this. It's a pretty small change, for the better. It doesn't (should't...) disturb anyone, but might make things just a little bit better for some others. Remove some slight friction.

A small, positive change.

According to the article, the metal hoop seems to have caught him in the neck. I can't imagine being there in the raft, nor being there as a bystander, watching.

I'm willing to bet that very few people accidentally consume bleach or warfarin under the belief that it is beneficial.

However, it's far more likely that a layman gains cursory information about a drug and its effects, while lacking the specialized knowledge required to safely prescribe it.

In short, it's far easier to accidentally poison yourself with prescription medication that it is with bleach, and we have measures in place to prevent such accidents for a reason.

Well.. Between the economy, the health sector, the infrastructure, the political developments, the education, the state of civil rights, the widespread religious influences at all levels of society and a culture of armed violence ...

Who's to say that the US, by and large, isn't a developing nation?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-develop...

Tizen, webOS, LineageOS?