johnnyfaehell

To be fair, most of the chaos is done by the devs. And then they did more chaos when they could automate their chaos. Maybe, we should teach developers how to code.

Haha yea me disagreeing with folks like you is submissive

No because you purposefully crafted one that is not BB anywhere near similar to what was being discussed. Being obtuse generally means you’re wrong and know it but don’t like the truth.

The thing is that so many people are used to doing whatever they want from behind the safety of their screen and are now able to do a lot of things they don’t want anyone to know about. Now the law and common sense is catching up and we’re starting to see things we take for granted in the physical world are coming to the digital world. And I think a lot of people are scared of not being able to do what they used to or being found out for doing it.

Plus, and doing what you suggest but in a country where board directors don’t need to be public really solves it.

Yea, I’m going to avoid AI in my browser for a long time. I suspect it’s going to be a Wild West of security vulns for a year or so.

While we may be smart, a lot of us are extremely pedantic about tech things. I think for many if they did nothing it would wind them up the wall while doing something the annoyance is smaller.

As a customer who has managed to fall in between cracks quite a few times. I would say N26 customer service needs some serious work.

At one point they literally lost some of my money and then said it was returned but I wouldn't be able to see a transaction for it because there wasn't one. That is probably the worst but other times have seen me on the phone arguing about stuff that really shouldn't need arguing about.

I like the idea but having people give you their username and then generating the password for them is clearly a security risk since it's easy for that to be hacked and the save the passwords it's generated for people.

Maybe I'm not meant to see the change as I'm an adult but the only change I saw was Google Suite repeatedly telling me that under 18 year olds weren't allowed to use the service. So just denying them access to things has changed.

Some of us value our time. And this is not a techincal project it's an end user project. So as an end user I want to know quickly if it's worth my time. Even on a techincal project I want to know a rough overview within a minute or so of reading. Marketing is all about giving people the info they need fast. Marketing is about selling the benefits and telling of the pains it solves. If you're unable to do that for your project, why did you build it?

And I think the person who spends their time reading techincal documentation to decide if a social network is worth using is probably sadder than the person who goes and reads the about page. Not got much else to do?

Make a goddamn effort to figure out why someone's project is worth time investigating? Literally, that landing page has a video and links to articles. I don't want to spend minutes watching an ad. I went to the about page and read the info I should have read next to the video and understood what was what in 10 seconds.

Expecting people to make an effort to find out if a product/project is useful to them is basically asking not to have as many users. Basically, you just wasted your time building the product.

GPL is copyleft, they're mainly doing additions and modifications to code that is GPL. They have to publish their code. I believe they try to be sneaky and hide how they add it but it's all open source.

Snap, Tiktok, Pinterest, and even twitter were never competing for the space that Facebook has. The main space Facebook has is social advertising and there is no competitors and anyone tries to enter that market gets attacked by Facebook since Facebook runs it. Try starting a company that will allow you to buy influencer ads on Instagram and uses the API the influencer can grant to you to correctly identify how much money to pay the influencer. Facebook will remove your API access the minute it realises you're trying to do advertising and they're not getting a cut. Facebook are very open that their problem is they're not making any money on it. We understand their reasoning but it's againist the law to then sue companies for trying to get public data and the other attacks. If Google can't rank it's own products higher in google search Facebook shouldn't be allowed to remove API access solely because you're providing a service they don't even provide and don't even want to provide.

Chances of people dying from my web app is super slim. Chances of people dying because I bladly wired their house is and it caught fire is a lot higher.

Chances of me dying while developing my web app is super slim. Chances of someone frying themselves with wiring something up when they don't know how is a lot higher.

You can delete your cookies on a weekly basis and it'll be like they did.

> Courts only said "If your server responds to an unauthenticated GET request, that's on you". Linkedin is free to stop providing that data or move it behind a login wall, they just don't want to because it helps them with SEO. Contrast that with these plugins that are absolutely accessing data behind the user's login.

Yes, exactly. Basically saying if LinkedIn was providing the data they couldn't block the data for specific people. In contrast, these plugins are collecting data that someone has chosen to make available to them. This is Facebook attempting to stop people from giving data to their competitors. This is anti-competitive. Overall the LinkedIn case said that if the user made that data available then that is on them. Not that it was an unauthenticated request, but that the data was made public and there was no attempt to bypass any privacy filters.

> Also with regards to the antitrust assertions you make, Facebook is absolutely not required to share their data with anyone. People give their data to FB, FB can do what they want with it (as long as it's within the ToS). Facebook can't stop me from also giving my data to someone else outside the platform, but they do not have to facilitate that process in any way.

One of Facebook's services is to provide that data to other services so you can use those services with that data. Saying no you can't share that data and not provide you that data in export is well, anti-competitive. This is saying "No, we don't want you to give those people that data." This is anti-competitiveness. Suing companies and preventing them from competing is predatory. You make claims that Facebook doesn't have to do these things, I feel like Facebook should be forced to allow these things. Just like we force Facebook to do other things like delete user data or make user data available (which it actually isn't doing completely last time I checked because you can't export your data and then have the exact same data on your own system.)

Luckily, I believe the legal standard may be a reasonable person would understood it. :)

>This isn't a case of users knowingly using a tool to scrape data for their own use, the users installing the extension are, at most, mules, for the extension makers.

I feel it's reasonable for the average person to figure that a plugin that pays them for using Facebook and Twitter is paying for the data generated from those sessions. There is already a case with LinkedIn where courts are allowing data scraping even though LinkedIn disallows it and forced LinkedIn to stop blocking it.

I feel like this is a case Facebook should lose. Facebook wants complete ownership of the data from Facebook for marketing purposes because obviously if they're the only ones that have the data they have a monopoly. But preventing others from gathering competing data seems to be a breach of Antitrust. And Facebook execs will openly admit this is what they're doing. They've shut down multiple influencer related companies who completely backed down from a cease and desist from Facebook. And they're refusing to allow anyone to grant influencer agencies access to their data. This is Facebook telling people who they can give their data to. As well as Facebook saying companies can't scrape public information and then sell the statistics. And statistics can't be copyrighted.

Well the difference between "hey my dad works at Xbox and will ban you" and this is this is now past tense. So it would be a case of you getting banned on Xbox and someone going "Yea that was my dad".

When rocket invests heavily, it becomes a rocket venture. That's how VC pretty much works.

I think you missed the fact that Foodpanda and Delivery Hero were both Rocket companies. It was that Foodpanda was doing soo poorly they gave it to Delivery Hero which was for Europe. Overall, Delivery Hero/Foodpanda are pulling out of markets repeatedly. And not small markets either.

Also, Foodpanda's plan when I was there was IPO.

Globally, it's mostly Foodpanda that was doing soo poorly they had to be sold to Delivery Hero, no?

I am not too sure about them. They sold the German companies and pulled Foodora out of a few countries.

> It's worked at least a couple times, right?

Yea, HelloFresh seems to be doing well and Zalando dominates in fashion. There are probably a few others doing well too.

I worked at Foodpanda, which was one of the Rocket Internet flagship companies for a time. Foodpanda was a mess, and the people from Rocket Internet were saying it was 10x better than Rocket Internet. Which I can believe since Foodpanda outsourced work to Rocket Internet because Rocket Internet said so. They literally assigned me to make sure they didn't screw the project up, they wouldn't take any feedback really. I ended up not caring about the project because it wasn't actually within my offical responsibilites. At the end of the project I was included in the email threads between the two CTOs where the Foodpanda CTO repeatedly pointed out that they were warned about all the shortcoming in the project way before the end and that they needed fixed. Rocket Internet responded saying that was a lot of work and they would need developer resources from Foodpanda. Me and one of the guys I worked with at Foodpanda decided a way to tell if a developer was worthwhile in Berlin was how long they stayed at rocket. Majority in Berlin would have worked for them at some point, so working there wasn't a sign they were bad. But if they stayed there for more than a year, that was.

From my experience Foodpanda's biggest problem was tech. They literally had hundreds of servers be knocked off line because one redis server with session data went down. This was considered acceptable within the company. There was a culture of failure. And the business side had these issues too. There was a write up in an Indian newspaper where they basically got tore to shreads for all their failures publically. Turned out half of the company didn't realise how bad things were.

Foodpanda was Rocket's attempt at buying up competitors and dominating India. They literally bought everyone and still lost the war to dominate food ordering in India.

The only time I would advise people to deal with rocket internet is if they're a developer who is just moving to Berlin. Lots of fun to be had, everyone else has just moved so there are tons of people who hangout. After a while get to know the city and find a different company to work for.

Rocket Internet is known for doing pretty much what the quote in the article has "What they're doing is totally legal and totally immoral." How they operate is rather well known.

I remember that the financial side of ICE wanted to break away from ICE because the hate the immigration side generates. I was reading that it was actually preventing them from taking down bankers (Or someone else that I specifically don't like, but I hate bankers the most) because people who would normally help them stopped helping after the changes Trump made.

> Most drug dealers in this country are small time weed dealers. Usually college kids or recently graduated. These are the drug dealers who are small time and basically never get caught because they aren’t the demographic that drug laws were created to criminalize. So no, you and I seem to know different things.

I'm assuming you're counting people who sold drugs to a friend as a drug dealer?

And trust me, most drug dealers are not college kids. Those are edge case drug dealers. Even the small time ones who sell say 100 pills/an oz of coke a month.

> I’ve got to say it seems like this argument comes from a lack of real world experience and a strict adherence to the reports and theories of law enforcement agencies. Contrary to your belief, non-drug crimes do not suddenly spike in areas where drugs are legalized. See: Europe, American states where weed is legal.

I think the difference is, I had experience with a lot more drug dealers than you. Ranging from school kids selling a hundred bucks of weed a week, to people selling to pay for their weed, to folk selling because they got into drug debts, to people who supplied the entire town with a specific drug. You seem to know only small time folk selling weed.

> Contrary to your belief, non-drug crimes do not suddenly spike in areas where drugs are legalized. See: Europe, American states where weed is legal.

Weed? That's not where the money makers are. Very few people sell weed to make money, there is no money in weed. Heroin, cocaine, crack, meth are what people sell when they want to make money. These drugs not not legal in any country, in Portugal it is treated as a health issue but it is as far as I know, still illegal to sell the drugs.

> The word "lots" is what's called a weasel word [1]. 1000 is "lots". Is it a lot if there are a million drug dealers? How does it compare to other crime correlations? Or general rates in the population?

Let's be serious, you and I both know, I meant a high percentile. This is just a bad faith argument made after using an anedote of knowing 12 drug dealers to say a statement about a high percentile of drug dealers would commit other crimes to make money if drugs were legal. Despite the fact that a high percentile of current drug dealers commit other crime. The reason I'm not using an exact number is because I don't want someone like you saying "Well the in the US 26% don't do that" when I found a stat for differnt country. We both know what is meant.

> Your logic is fallacious. You know what has a 100% correlation with dealing drugs and committing those other crimes? Breathing. Drinking water. Eating. Correlation tells us little. Perhaps it does hint that a disregard for authority exists.

My logic is: Someone who got into selling drugs to make a profit because the barrier to entry is low would move into another area of criminality to make money because the barrier to entry is low.

Your logic is: ???

Is it that they would still sell drugs? Why don't they sell something that is legal? Is it because the barrier to entry is higher? That they just wouldn't try and make money anymore?

> Also I'd say most of those crimes are not victimless...

Drugs is not a victimless crime either. Drug users are often victims of shoddy drugs being sold with dangerous chemicals in them. And I never said they weren't victimless, I just said they weren't against a person. A company is not a person.

My argument is supported by crime statistics that show lots of drug dealers are convicted of other crimes.

I would like to point out that I used the word lots and not many, not most, not all. I specifically used the word lots. So counter statements like yours couldn't be used.

And if we're going to be pedantic, I guess it's my turn.

> Other types of crime require crimes against people.

There area many crimes where you don't commit it againit a person. Selling counterfeit goods, the victim is a company. Creating fake currency. Selling illegal weapons. Smuggling people in to countries (many do commit crimes againist people, but it is not required, just taking money and getting someone across a border hurts no-one). Shoplifting. Insurance fraud. The list goes on and on.