They also oppose having ads on Wikipedia. Personally I don't see much difference between banners asking for donations and ads. I understand there are "bad" ads (privacy violating or ones causing conflict of interest), but not all of them are like this. Same with cryptocurrencies - some of them are "scam", but not all of them. It's strange that Wikipedia sees world as black and white.
Your personal blog? I think GDPR usually is applicable only for businesses. For example you don't need to adhere to GDPR when saving new contact on your phone. Maybe personal website might fall into such category as well.
Problem with music/video piracy was mostly resolved by providing reasonably priced usable services. Maybe instead of lobbying for quick takedowns, someone should put effort into providing services people would rather be using instead of bothering with finding pirated content.
A lot of people had started investing because they don't know what to do with the money. When you stop spending money on restaurants or vacation or other stuff which is no longer available, you end up surplus. So why not invest it in the stock market?
I've had unintentional usage for few hundreds dollars. After explaining the situation and setting API limits the bill was cancelled. Your situation seems a bit different. But maybe explaining the situation and asking for help first is the best option.
Maybe you used (i.e. were assigned) "bad" IP? For my account using shared VPN triggered suspension (but in my case, I am allowed to get verified by providing my phone number (but after providing the number I am not receiving verification messages and there's no other way to get verified)).
As I understand, for example in Europe Pfizer is producing vaccines in single factory and not in sufficient number. Why production doesn't happen in more places? Couldn't they sell license to other European pharmaceutical companies to produce it? Is production process so unique it can't be replicated in other places?
I think one of the reasons for user tracking is fraud detection. The moment you get rid off it, nobody would be willing to "risk" advertising on smaller, unknown websites. So maybe such ban would make monetization for small publishers much harder.
If they really needed money, they would put some ads. They claim Wikipedia must be independent and that's why there are banner free. But for me it does not make sense, I am sure you can have business relation without compromising values.
Try building solid online identity. If you become recognizable and get some followers then in case of problems you could complain on social media. If your complaint gets enough upvotes you get personalized support :/
I am not sure what exactly do you mean is not true. But in fact the article you linked says about pre-gdpr cookie consent. So it kind of contradicts what I said. But in practice to gather such consent it was allowed to say "if you don't consent, please disable cookies in your browser" and that's what I meant about "I understand" button. Regarding the exempt for this notification, I am not sure if CF cookies should be considered as strictly necessary.
But the regulator guide is about GDPR. And it's consistent with what I wrote - GDPR law does not require consent for such cookies. So the regulator is ok with no consent.
Apart from GDPR law, there's also separate EU Cookie Legislation which was passed before GDPR. This regulation require clear user notification (not consent) that cookies are used. As far as I know (but I might be wrong, I don't follow it) this law is still in place and GDPR did not replace it. So that means you still need cookie notification banner (but not with "I accept" button but with "I understand").
You might be kind of wrong. I think you don't need consent. But the cookie law still requires notification banner (which is basically the same thing). That's because cookie usage by itself (no matter the purpose) requires notification.
You don't really need own email server to solve such problem. If only you had own domain, you could have moved it to different provider and still have access to the services which require your email address.
By the way, I often hear how it's good for privacy to use (basically all the time) such VPNs. But my experience so far is that using internet via popular VPNs is annoying. Some websites won't let you in, you get a lot of random CAPTCHAs to solve (e.g. to get Google results) and it seems you can lose email account. For me it's too much hassle.
Isn't it other way around? Authentication is about confirming one's identity and that's what oAuth is used for. Authorization is about giving proper permissions and that's what happens after you get authenticated and has nothing to do with oAuth. Am I missing something?
It would be nice to see how it compares to other products. Lately I've been noticing quite a few GA alternatives, would be nice to know which one is really worth looking into.
Does a software which helps you saving bookmarks really need several mainteners? Why can't it be just "finished" and no longer be developed? Does saving bookmarks really need to be (no matter how)"hosted"?
I think GDPR requires website owner to inform users what exactly is being processed and by who. The problem for website owners is that Facebook won't really tell what data they process and who will they share it with or they do not seem to allow to revoke consent.
For me Nextcould seemed overcomplicated. It's whole platform for multiple users with multiple features (e.g. calendars, contacts). It did not seem to be solution for single user who just wants dropbox alternative. But the biggest issue I had with it, I couldn't find instructions for backing it up and restoring.
So, it basicaly makes easier to avoid taxes? For example you earn in bitcoin and you now have easy way to spend it. That's probably not applicable for US citzens, but would IRSes around the world be able to get your data from coinbase?