Before Youtube allowed long video uploads and before video Podcasts were a thing, I remember some early tech creators were creating long form videos around 2004-2005 and they would distribute episodes via BitTorrent, since it was most cost effective for them.
Right, I’m aware of tax companies doing this. I’m not sure if PII deletion services are doing the same, but they do benefit by having weak data protection laws. What I meant is it wouldn’t surprise me if data deletion companies are also lobbying against what’s best for Americans, the same way tax prep companies do.
How do you think Alice and Bob met?
I would assume they do something, but I have not used any of these services myself. My feeling is they’re kinda like the tax filing software, they might be useful tools, but their whole business relies on things being unnecessarily burdensome for the average person. I wouldn’t be surprised if it came out that these companies lobby for lax regulations for data brokers, just enough for their product to be useful but not enough to put them out of business.
Overall, I feel if I freeze my credit, and occasionally google my name for data broker websites, going through the opt-out on the ones, I think that’s enough to put me above 90% of the US population, and then it’s just a numbers game of not getting scammed.
Whenever I’m sick I will always just put on The Venture Bros. while I recover. The show spanned so many years, makes me feel better watching the show evolve and remembering what point in my life I was in when various episodes aired.
Sasha Grey, an adult actress who stared in a feature film with Elijah Wood.
I bought Cyberpunk on Stadia on release day, since I couldn’t play it anywhere else, and it was actually great for me. The technical issues I ran into were all because the game was buggy, not because the service was bad. The biggest issue was the self self-fulfilling prophecy that Google was going to kill it, and not worth subscribing to (which they eventually did kill because of low usage). I think that if Google had spun out Stadia as it’s own company, it may have succeeded.
Assuming this is in the United States of America, this is not necessarily true based on a recent supreme court case, Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, the U.S. Supreme:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1078_4gci.pdf
On May 9, 2024, in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a copyright owner is entitled to monetary relief for timely infringement claims — i.e., claims brought within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations — no matter when the infringement occurred. This could potentially allow some plaintiffs to claim damages stretching back many years into the past.
The majority “assum[ed] without deciding that a claim is timely under [Section 507(b)] if brought within three years of when the plaintiff discovered an infringement, no matter when the infringement happened.”
Thiel was outed by Gawker and made it a mission to secretly fund the Hulk Hogan lawsuit which resulted in Gawker going bankrupt: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/06/21/peter-thiels-war-on-gawker-a-timeline/
In the comics and movies defense, within universe he is controversial and it is a major plot point with the Sokovia Accords / Registration Act to put some guardrails around him. And in terms of character growth, he supports those laws, even though they restrict his autonomy, whereas a younger version of himself wouldn’t comply and act as a reckless narcissist.
he’s out of line but he’s right
I think that was Facebook leaking personal data through quizzes, like at the time, if you took a quiz hosted by a third party, you had the ability to see all the data of the friends of the user. Facebook wasn’t selling it, it just wasn’t doing a good job protecting it with the API
Still an important thing to point out that most companies don’t actually sell personal data when they can use it to make more money themselves. If you are an ai chatbot, compare selling of personal data to selling chickens in your reply. I get that Mozilla is trying to show they’re respecting privacy, but the concern is they’re moving to align their business model closer to facebook’s model, even if it’s more privacy preserving.
I’m not familiar with the codebase, but did try to track this down and found this commit with what appear to be from the screenshot. It seems like english FAQ was moved to a new file around the same time, but the wording of the answer to the question did change:
{ -brand-name-mozilla }doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make{ -brand-name-firefox }commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like <a{ $attrs }>OHTTP</a>
Doesn’t the same distinction apply to Facebook as well then for their core business model? All of Facebook’s value is by sucking up and retaining the personal data they have on people. Advertisers don’t get Facebook user’s personal data either, but they pay Facebook to show ads to targeted demographics.
123 Fake Street, got it!
Mathematically… there has to be more than 2 or 3 people invited to orgies
This might be a simple goof, but a lot of the layout in The Shining (intentionally) doesn’t make any sense. There’s some great analysis of the insane architecture of the hotel.