Maybe it isn't, but I just find it hard to believe the obsession with Merrivius on r/comics is completely natural.
Elf girl is bottom left, the artist begins with M. Their comics are really popular on r/comics.
Edit: The artist is called Merrivius https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/elf-comic/list?title_no=983708
Shots fired lmao I bet this tanked on reddit, they're obsessed with their elf girl (and that totally isn't astroturfed).
Nah it would have cost the city the same regardless, you're just talking about how much the civils business pays its workers.
Most likely this would have been part of a larger project of installing cycle lanes in various places. But it still would have been expensive, civil contractors are notorious.
Cool, I'll give the video a full watch then. I normally don't like Rossmann videos because he takes 30 min to say what he could have covered in 5-10.
But yeah, they shouldn't be doing that. That's selling of data. If they want to sell my data, that I manufactured by my literal blood, sweat, and tears of being alive, they should pay me for it first.
They're not claiming a right to sell data right now, but they have removed the promise to not sell data.
That promise is a canary statement. When the canary dies it's an indication of something, usually that it's time to stop using the product/service.
More specifically, they aren't claiming the right to sell data however they want. However, they do have to follow all legal requests, and they can bill for this provision. If a government compells them to sell they have to oblige.
Maybe it is kinda the same as when Google decided to get rid of the “don’t be evil” statement…
That was exactly what I was thinking of. Although I think there were even better examples with proper canary statements going away in line with the business' alleged joining of the PRISM program.
Consideration does not have to just mean monetary payment
Your statement implies there are other forms of payment than monetary.
Firstly, “consideration” in this context means payment.
My statement did not state monetary payments only, just payment generally. I clarified 2 sentences later with "in exchange for a payment (money or otherwise)". The point I'm making is that "consideration" is a payment in return for something else, and that payment can either be money or any other valuable item or service.
Ahh good ol Rossmann lol. I love him but I hate watching his videos, he goes far too ranty and repeats himself, it becomes hard to extract the real points.
Case in point, the video at your timestamp starts with an After-Before-Whatever rant before getting into any of the meat XD
I think everyone is really missing the points here. It isn't just bad PR, it's so bad that it can only be intentional. They didn't just claim rights and put them back, they removed their pledges to not sell data. The conversation isn't focused on the net result, the loss of the pledge, it's diluted elsewhere.
Maybe they're selling data to governments under law? I'm sure they already have terminology that permits them to do things legally required of them (so they don't need you to give them further rights), and the general process for the tech industry is to protest against such government interference up until the point a contract is negotiated where the government pays for access. In fact, I think this is generally what's happened with other businesses when their canary statements have gone away, as was revealed in the Snowden leaks.
Yes exactly. And that is entirely right and proper.
Nothing of what Mozilla should be doing meets that definition. Even if they share data with 3rd parties to process it, and even if they pay the 3rd party for that service, they're not supposed to get something in return for providing the data. But also, providing data in such a manner does not mean they are selling it.
If they are getting something in return for providing the data, be it payment, other services or even simply a discount, then they're doing something wrong.
Rule 1: No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
I'm struggling here. Xenophobia? But they clearly do not support either side.
If you use both as justification, you don't have to worry about different communities having them the other way around. It gets real fun when a community has the rules one way, but the instance sets them the other way.
Rule 1: No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Rule 2: Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
Meanwhile, replying to the commenter with "My little cyκa" (bitch) received no moderation.
Frankly, moderators should be more detailed in their reports, and clearly specify which rules they are acting under.
The Removed Comment entries should also specify which community they were removed from, just like the bans. This would further clarify the set of rules being moderated under. You can determine this by viewing a community modlog, but not when viewing the modlog overall (although I'm sure the core database has this functionality).
However the user here definitely deserved moderation, and a 3 day ban is appropriate. Maybe not based on the first comment alone, but the overall haul of them. The Kkkracker label might not have been justified by those comments, but they certainly have a bias leaning that way, based on some of their other comments.
I almost thought this was another case of the mod removing the same comment multiple times, but no, the user really did post the same comment over and over again.
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20231113080922/https://i.imgur.com/bZkSCfg.png
Text: Banned, reason: PUNISHMENT TIME BITCH! -> Unbanned -> Banned, reason: liberal
I bet they thought they were sending a message to the user, not writing an entry into a permanent log.
Moderation on lemmy really should include the option of messaging the user, though.
view more: next ›
Yeah I mean I feel like they're just being overly cautious here (as lawyers often are) when in fact there is no real precedent to support that position. The law perhaps could be interpreted to stretch the definition of sale broadly, but in practice it isn't right now.
Frankly, I find it offensive that businesses would choose to pass that minute risk onto the customer by weakening consumer rights.