nceqs3

9 ms·

31.
by nceqs3 3y ago
>They profit hundreds of millions and get a $400,000 fine for breaking the law. This is not an accident. Can you give an example of this?
32.
by nceqs3 3y ago
Imagine thinking stopping the horrors of child sexual abuse makes you an evil person. Perhaps you are projecting.
33.
by nceqs3 3y ago
> Personalized advertising is built around an obvious violation of human dignity and the right to privacy as recognized by the UDHR. lmfao. HN never gets old.
34.
I’m Not the Product, but I Play One on the Internet(powazek.com)
2 points by nceqs3 3y ago|1 comments
35.
Some new snippets from the Snowden documents(electrospaces.net)
5 points by nceqs3 3y ago|1 comments
36.
On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations(electrospaces.net)
273 points by nceqs3 3y ago|219 comments
37.
by nceqs3 3y ago
Yes, the huge and profitable 90s web.
38.
by nceqs3 3y ago
Have you read how vague the laws are. It's all designed to extract fines from US companies.
39.
by nceqs3 3y ago
>Anything that chokes off the flow of money via advertising to these companies is a two-tier win in my book. So you want paywalls for every service?
40.
by nceqs3 3y ago
You do realize the endowment funds 1/3 of the operating budget at Harvard? Calling it a "hedge fund" proves you don't know what you are talking about.
41.
by nceqs3 3y ago
50% of the Harvard class are not legacy. It's nowhere close to that number. Of course Harvard (one of the best universities in the world) deserves USG grants.
42.
by nceqs3 3y ago
So only rich people who can afford to run their own servers and have the technical knowledge to put one together should be allowed to share content?
43.
by nceqs3 3y ago
Straw-man. The grandparent is pointing out that services like Google, Instagram and YouTube would be behind paywalls without ads. There is no free internet without ads.
44.
by nceqs3 3y ago
You are thinking of https://www.legistorm.com/ .
45.
by nceqs3 3y ago
>Back Market, Doctolib, Ornikar, HelloFresh, GitPod, N26, Yubikey, Revolut have plenty of impact and innovation as startups. lol. I have heard of like two of these and even those are tiny companies.
46.
by nceqs3 3y ago
>My understanding is there is legislation being enacted which strips power from elected or appointed groups and places that power with the executive. Who elected the Supreme Court in Israel? Nobody. The power will now lie in the hands of
47.
by nceqs3 3y ago
Searching is the key word there. Without ads, Google would be behind a paywall. Without ads, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, etc. would also be behind paywalls.
48.
by nceqs3 3y ago
Without targeted ads, everything will be behind a paywall.
49.
by nceqs3 3y ago
>Some could say it is one of the things that turned the election of 2016 to Trump. Zuckerberg had no problem with this. This is just patently false. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Also CA wasn't really Facebook's fau
50.
by nceqs3 3y ago
While I agree with them, it's important to note that the EFF is very pro-big tech and is largely funded by them.
51.
by nceqs3 3y ago
HN is not America (thank god) Private companies catching child predators is actually pretty popular.
52.
by nceqs3 3y ago
1) Iran? did you forget about sanctions? Apple does not operate at all in Iran. No offices, no employees, no data centers. Nothing. Apple doesn't care what Iran tells them to do lol. 2) I mean they search for spam, malware, copyrighted
53.
by nceqs3 3y ago
> It's proportionate to give partisan governments fond of the nastiest behaviors the ability to read every word that you type to anyone? This argument is so absurdly dumb. Today, every tech company will give EVERY single message, te
54.
by nceqs3 3y ago
As of today every tech platform scans every message, photo, email, etc. for CSAM, yet there isn't misuse of the system. Why would that change under the proposed change?
55.
by nceqs3 3y ago
>You are missing the third option: no scanning anywhere. What a take. Thankfully the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you in the slightest. Also private companies can do whatever they please.
56.
by nceqs3 3y ago
This is HN. The facts are not relevant.
57.
by nceqs3 3y ago
Wild the FTC isn't suing the NYTimes, WSJ, or every other paid news outlet for far more egregious cancellation process practices. Almost as if the FTC is a political weapon.
58.
Tornado Cash Is Not Free Speech. It’s a Golem (2022)(lawfareblog.com)
2 points by nceqs3 3y ago|0 comments
59.
Merck Sues over IRA Medicare Drug Negotiation Law(assets.bwbx.io)
1 points by nceqs3 3y ago|0 comments
60.
All EFF’d Up: Silicon Valley’s astroturf privacy shakedown(thebaffler.com)
2 points by nceqs3 3y ago|0 comments

More ›