3 ms·

Or they could like, not. I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency. I believe that world is nicer and wher

Or they could like, not. I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency. I believe that world is nicer and where possible I work to give it room to exist; I boycott Disney because I believe what they did to the copyright system is wrong. I don't use Google or Microsoft products because I don't think they treat users with respect. (Minus youtube which I use a mirror, and the occasional google search when I get tired of banging my head against ddg (~1-2/week, but my tolerance is probably higher than most)) I'm even abstaining from my copy of Overwatch despite loving the gameplay of a character in it, because I don't believe supporting the HK protests warrants a ban. I'm not going to boycott Canon from this, incompetence is generally forgivable, but I certainly think it's noteworthy, and if it comes to light they are as nonchalant as OP says they can be then I won't be supporting them. Downthread someone had mentioned there was a 10GB/user cap, so it's unlikely someone had been using it as their only copy which is also reassuring. But then again maybe someone was just getting into photography after having a baby, and their precious first photos were lost! Or photos from a special date, or first (god forbid last) moments with a pet; it's sad to think about, and it can't be justified with "darn, guess it's gone forever so Canon could gain a small advantage using some risk calculus. Oh well, I give more of a damn about the stock market than those photos." Don't give me that shit! Disclaimer: I only own a pitiful EOS 20d and a cute f1.4 50mm, but my friend has been super into photography and I've been wanting to get into it again. Thanks for reading my rant.

chrisweekly 6y ago
"Minus youtube which I use a mirror" ?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- falcor84 6y ago
  Not the poster, but intent was probably something like "... which I use [via] a mirror" I suppose it partially aligns with the intent of a boycott
  - kohtatsu 6y ago
    Mhm, it was a disclosure of the extent of the boycott, as it is unfortunately difficult to get away from YouTube. Taken further it's also about denying data (which recommendations I click through, at which times, from which videos, in which moods etc, and social graph via view timings). Edit: I don't believe that kind of stuff should be collected without explicit, informed user consent. Make it clear what you're collecting and doing with it and chances are I'll opt-in. https://instances.invidio.us/ https://instances.invidio.us/ Deleted sibling comment: https://i.imgur.com/YhXIU6O.png https://i.imgur.com/YhXIU6O.png
jefftk 6y ago
> there was a 10GB/user cap, so it's unlikely someone had been using it as their only copy I don't understand why a small total size implies people are less likely to use it for their only copy of something?
- tombert 6y ago
  I think because video and photos have the potential to be huge, especially in higher-end cameras, so it wouldn't take very long to exhaust 10gb of data, implying that they might be using a service that allows more for longer-term stuff (e.g. S3).
Bobbcatt 6y ago
>But then again maybe someone was just getting into photography after having a baby, and their precious first photos were lost! Or photos from a special date, or first (god forbid last) moments with a pet; it's sad to think about, Things die and change. Holding onto the past with photographs is not healthy.
eternalban 6y ago
> I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency. I'll wager a guess that in that world a corporation is not a 'legal person'. In that world, a "person" must have human characteristics. They call it the Legal Turing Test.

chrisweekly 6y ago

"Minus youtube which I use a mirror" ?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
falcor84 6y ago
Not the poster, but intent was probably something like "... which I use [via] a mirror" I suppose it partially aligns with the intent of a boycott
- kohtatsu 6y ago
  Mhm, it was a disclosure of the extent of the boycott, as it is unfortunately difficult to get away from YouTube. Taken further it's also about denying data (which recommendations I click through, at which times, from which videos, in which moods etc, and social graph via view timings). Edit: I don't believe that kind of stuff should be collected without explicit, informed user consent. Make it clear what you're collecting and doing with it and chances are I'll opt-in. https://instances.invidio.us/ https://instances.invidio.us/ Deleted sibling comment: https://i.imgur.com/YhXIU6O.png https://i.imgur.com/YhXIU6O.png

jefftk 6y ago

> there was a 10GB/user cap, so it's unlikely someone had been using it as their only copy I don't understand why a small total size implies people are less likely to use it for their only copy of something?

tombert 6y ago
I think because video and photos have the potential to be huge, especially in higher-end cameras, so it wouldn't take very long to exhaust 10gb of data, implying that they might be using a service that allows more for longer-term stuff (e.g. S3).

Bobbcatt 6y ago

>But then again maybe someone was just getting into photography after having a baby, and their precious first photos were lost! Or photos from a special date, or first (god forbid last) moments with a pet; it's sad to think about, Things die and change. Holding onto the past with photographs is not healthy.

eternalban 6y ago

> I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency. I'll wager a guess that in that world a corporation is not a 'legal person'. In that world, a "person" must have human characteristics. They call it the Legal Turing Test.