If Valve limited credit card purchases to PG games, but let customers purchase other games via crypto, then payment processors couldn’t complain about alleged high chargeback rates or association with adult content.
I imagine payment processors wouldn’t love this solution, but at that point they’re just asking for full editorial control, and we should resist.
Not necessary. They could just keep almost everything as-is with normal credit card processors, but for adult stuff, just use the same kind of processors other adult sites use. Those have a lot worse rates from what I hear, but still way more accessible than crypto
Wow, thanks for the warning that Couchers bans naturists. I am aware of many unique and beautiful experiences by naturists hosts. It’s disappointing that Couchers would want to eliminate them.
Self censorship resulting from pressures from the likes of Visa, MasterCard, Google Play and Apple's App store when the law doesn't forbid it. This is the problem when the world is run by monopolies. Laws don't mean anything, companies effectively make them.
There are other reasons to not want to deal with issues resulting from non-traditional lifestyles beyond that pressures from payment processors and pretending otherwise is a little silly.
I’ve been having trouble with Pocket’s offline mode and TTS feature for a while, and just migrated (yesterday!) to Obsidian via Obsidian Web Clipper (automated using Pupeteer).
Obsidian doesn’t have all the features necessary for a read-it-later app, but almost!
Is it open source? Can anyone confirm that? What keeps it from changing in the future? I don’t have anything crazy sensitive, but I’m mindful of getting my info sold to advertisers.
That mentality is exactly what leads to the problem. You want to hold everyone organization accountable for every perceived failing which leads them to optimize towards a state where they can justify existence but do as little as possible to minimize the potential for any perceived failing.
I often notice journalistic pieces interview people and then use maybe 30 seconds' worth of material from a 20-minute interview. The "expert" could have condemned it in any number of ways until the topic of applying data protection laws came up and she said that companies need to be held accountable (could be about GDPR, could be about snooping laws) which the journalist then quoted, not out of malice but because everyone already condemns it and this is the most interesting statement of the interview
Anyway, so while I don't think we should condemn people based on such a single quoted sentence... I took a look at her website and the latest video reveals at 00:38 that she worked for the UK crime agency, which does sound like the one of the greatest possible conflicts of interest for someone called upon for privacy matters rather than crime fighting. Watching the rest of that interview, she approaches it fairly objectively but (my interpretation of) her point of view seems to be on the side of "even with this backdoor, a warrant needs issuing every time they use it and so there's adequate safeguards and the UK crime fighters and national security people should just get access to anything they can get a warrant for"
Assuming you’ve framed it fairly, that’s a pretty atrocious point of view for someone calling themselves a privacy expert to hold. A privacy expert should know that backdoors are dangerous to privacy even if you trust the people who are supposed to have the keys.
I check for an RSS feed, and if it does not exist, subscribe via KTN.
It would be awesome if KTN provided an easy way to upgrade/redirect at KTN feed to an original feed, if one exists. I'm not sure how conveniently redirects would be handled by RSS clients...
It should be up to the employer. If one company thinks that a past conviction is irrelevant while other companies think a past conviction is disqualifying, then the former may get the employee at a better rate, the company will thrive depending on whether they were right, they'll have more resources to hire ex-cons, and other companies will follow suit.
A blanket law that forces all companies to hire employees without considering information they think is important is really inefficient. Just recently, governments and people were complaining that rideshare companies weren't being exclusive enough! If you think new laws will find the optimal policy for all companies, you are incorrect!
It's also overreaching. Freedom of association is important. The owner of a Jewish deli shouldn't be compelled to hire a formerly convicted neo-Nazi.
>The owner of a Jewish deli shouldn't be compelled to hire a formerly convicted neo-Nazi.
Who cares if they were convicted? That detail is shoehorned in here to make it sound like a good example when it isn't. Neo-nazis are not a protected class, and so the deli owner would be entirely within their rights to not hire someone on that basis, with or without a conviction on their criminal record.
And honestly how often do they get convicted of say, a hate crime, that might show up on a background check compared to the number of neo-nazis in the country with clean records, or who get acquitted, etc.?
And the US and Europe are moving towards command economies to keep up with China, showing their politicians don’t really believe in liberalism.