dan

joined 2 years ago
[–] dan@lemm.ee 100 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Yeah that’s totally galling. Shrinkflation for online services.

You know some shiny-suited corporate asshole got a huge bonus for coming up with that though.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 38 points 2 years ago

Isn’t the “take it or leave it” approach to consent considered consent bundling? Didn’t google get fined for doing a similar thing?

[–] dan@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

If you’re making a mil a year in revenue there’s a good chance your profit margin is tiny and licensing fees could obliterate it.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Hotmail was 2mb.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 32 points 2 years ago

Yet more evidence that aggressive adblocking is cyber security.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 51 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Surely those broadcasters will pull their streams (it's not like they're not already hurting), FireTV will get a reputation of having restricted access to broadcast TV, some people will live with it and some will buy a smart TV and not worry about Amazon any more..

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Look while I do agree Reddit can be a bit of an echo chamber, what you're saying is you struggle to interact with a community in a way that the people in that community are happy with. I'm not suggesting that you are a trolling fuckbag intent on only starting fights and drama for their own amusement, but what you want to be able to do without restriction is the same as what a trolling fuckbag intent on only starting fights and drama for their own amusement would want...

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I just don't think it's a good enough reason to decide minimum karma limits aren't valuable.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Yeah. Karma requirements pretty much just force you to make a few comments without being an asshole to anyone before you can post. This seems like a fairly low bar to me, at least for anyone who’s not an asshole.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Omg they’re going to get n-bombed by a 12 year old to death!

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I mean. The short term solution is to ban them.

[–] dan@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).

So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.

view more: ‹ prev next ›