Subsequent comments have pointed to the founder’s background. What’s the evidence that DDG itself is not privacy centric as claimed?
4,709 karma · joined February 22, 2013
(1) Just because you pay for a service doesn’t mean the company isn’t also “double dipping” and collecting your data.
(2) There are plenty of free services — NextDNS, for example - for which you aren’t the product. And of course there’s FOSS, which are not services but come close.
> And it could potentially have been even worse. Had their few competitors also gone down, literally all electronic payments would have broken at once.
This... is not true. As noted by another comment here, a vast majority of the value transferred (82%) is ACH in the US.
That would be a major shift in strategy for the site. It has always been billed a freewheeling place that belonged to the users, with the company that owns it being something of a benevolent overlord that keeps the lights on. That is what attracts users and content. But of course that version of the web is dead. Any website that relies on advertisers for revenue will necessarily be limited in its tolerance for controversy.
In the end, though, I doubt it matters too much for the site’s revenue. Reddit has been dying for years according to many of the posters and yet it sees growth YoY.
I also wonder this. I know this is a common theme on this board, but I haven’t posted anything under my own name since 2015, when I left Facebook during the run up to the 2016 election.
I am careful with my words when I post. I try to avoid sarcasm, try to mean what I say and say what I mean. But I am not confident that a poorly worded question or statement won’t resurface in a few years and make me look like an asshole.
So I choose not to post under my real name, and even then I don’t dip into anything controversial. I don’t post pictures of myself on the Internet at all. I advise everyone to do the same.
It’s certainly the case that China has less “social discord” because of censorship. To what degree it would have been self-enforced without that censorship is another question entirely.
Consider Japan. Japan is a de facto totalitarian state with individuals and groups enforcing cultural norms independent of government backing. It has censored media, but not nearly to the extent that China does. It has very little social discord, despite an economy that has been stagnating for more than a generation.
“Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us”
“The Attention Merchants” by Tim Wu
>The workers... said they both received the notices last week from Tesla's human resources department citing their apparent failure to show up and the company's inability to reach them. The workers provided evidence of their continuing correspondence with managers.
Communicating directly with managers is not the same as communicating with HR; it seems like HR opened up a big list of people who hadn't clocked in in x days and sent them all termination-unless-you-say-otherwise notices.
The question I don't see answered in this article: Did HR communicate an end to the unpaid leave arrangement? I won't contend that that should have been clear from the start, since the situation changes by the day; but at least a little bit of "We're starting to wind down the unpaid leave program based on guidance from county authorities about the safety of ... etc, please arrange to resume your work by $Date,"
Great! Housing shouldn't be an investment anyway. There's no reason it has to be; there are plenty of places -- like Japan -- where houses are depreciating assets that expected to be torn down when the owners leave.
Sure, but once you figure it out for the set of devices you are using, that's it! It just works until it breaks for good. Wireless stuff... not so much. One day it works, the next it doesn't.
No, I don't think it's objectionable, since the institutions that people are forced to sponsor are public, and subject to the public's review. If people were forced to sponsor a private organization, I would find that objectionable, since those institutions are not subject to public review. That is better left to shareholders.
But this has always been true; it's now just easier to be put in that state if you misread the Overton Window [0], or the Overton Window shifts faster than you can delete your posts.
Prior to social media and the massively amplified speech platforms, the consequences of out-of-window speech were limited by how big your megaphone was, and the social consequences of associating with a person with outsider views was limited by the extent that people even knew who you associated with.
In the era of hyperconnection / hyper visibility, the risk to the individual is greater in both negative effects of associating with an outsider and in being that outsider. Can you blame a company or person for not wanting to associate with someone who risks having the Eye of Sauron shift to them? If the mob came looking for the guy in the red shirt, wouldn't you look down at your own to make sure its shade was safe?
The only solution, in my view, is to not put yourself in that position to begin with. Either post without your real name (and maintain the publicly acceptable persona) or disengage entirely. All the more reason to protect anonymous platforms, ones that are libre/distributed, etc.
Social consequences inflicted by other free people are those things which free people (i.e., those who are not incarcerated) enact upon you within their rights. These most exist in the negative: This is the right to not shop at your establishment; the right to not hire you to work for them; the right for them to not be near you, engage with you, or otherwise pay attention to you.
A simple way to think about it is that people whose opinions are far from the mainstream have to put in the intellectual work to convince people to associate with them if they value that opinions expression more than their own cohesion inside society. This is fair, as it's been demonstrated effective for various groups.
By misconstruing free speech to mean that the government ought to force private institutions to give everyone a microphone skews this work. It amounts to the government forcing private individuals to sponsor things they disagree with, and removes the ability of free people to disassociate themselves from that speech.
Overall I think the Internet works well for free speech in the US. It’s still cheap and easy to start your own website, so even if what you have to say is abhorrent to the majority you can still say it and have access to billions of people on earth. Just make sure you avoid CloudFlare.
I hope that Apple will have Screen Time on this device.
I don’t go to a car dealership and ask what the maximum price they’re willing to charge me for it.