That would connect the companies. If they're keeping them separate it could be an anti-trust move or more that these companies are going to start trading studios which has been seen in other industries where they trade markets, like the food delivery company you've been ordering from for years has probably changed hands a few times during that time period and probably name too.
You could make the connection a formal one. Years back HBO’s streaming services were actually provided by MLB, they had a contract together. No reason the same couldn’t happen with Netflix and Warner. Could have happened pre-merger too but it wouldn’t have been in Netflix’s interest.
I'm on Amazon.de and I literally ordered stuff seconds before posting the comment. They took the money and everything. The order is in my order history list.
> Even with un-googled Chromium I do not think these statements are self-consistent. We need browsers that do not allow Google to control the ecosystem. We need legitimate competition.
If you fork Chromium, Google doesn't control the ecosystem, it controls a large part of it. But you're able to build on top of that ecosystem. So you can have the best of both worlds, all the extensions and ecosystem from Chrome but with more. That is called true competition.
I also suspect Brave would take offense to your claim you can't have privacy on a Chromium fork.
While I appreciate your perspective, the widespread adoption of Google Chrome has presented challenges. The implementation of Manifest V3 demonstrates Google's significant influence over extension developers, requiring adherence to increasingly restrictive APIs or facing limited visibility within less popular browsers.
Extension developers are not forced to adhere to anything from Google to build compatible extensions that work on forks such as Brave. If they want to be in the Google ecosystem, sure, but as I pointed out, you can build your own ecosystem on top of it.
If you build on top of it, you're not forced and unable to extend the ecosystem.
I think Facebook just forking the language instead of helping with development gave them the kick up the ass to sort out the development process. Then it just came down to having no one actually working on the language, so they needed to create the PHP Foundation to pay people to work on it because all the major companies left it behind (Yahoo, Facebook, Zend, etc). So it's good to see it managed to survive that chaos and become a pretty good language.
Because the UK does not have a national ID system like nearly every other country in Europe, the reason it goes nowhere is that it costs money and no one wants to spend the money on it.
I don't think so. I think it raises peoples' hackles because it is "not something we do here" - English-speaking countries seem to not go with mandatory ID in the same way as continental Europe. Maybe a Napoleonic/Common-Law thing?
This seems to be a pub bore talking point... the usual seemingly-clever street-level arguments that don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
If people think that if they get ID card, the government is coming to take their precious bodily fluids, then the country has bigger cultural, political problems than a mere public safety measure.
Some of the UK's biggest industries are money laundering and offshore tax evasion schemes for the very rich. They're literally worth hundreds of billions a year.
It's not a pub bore talking point, it's an oligarch and non-dom talking point. A lot of rich people would be inconvenienced if beneficial owner information records had reliable links to real people.
The pub bores are collateral damage - people who post unironically about privacy on social media.
How about we compare it with something more realistic? Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON. Since 1971, the 5 eyes countries have been spying on people en masse and scanning communications.
You probably don't like the comparission because you want to be an alarmist who is acting like this is new. All the fears you have, have literally been proven to be...
TextSecure (which later merged with RedPhone to become Signal) had existed since 2010. So it would be interesting to know if there were many other end-to-end encrypted services and products at the time since this was pre-leaks.
I only mentioned one program. A program that is literally comparable because it's literally what is being replaced. That program has been public knowledge in media such as TV shows and movies for decades. So when we're fear-mongering, we should only compare with that, and we should see what effects it had and the nonsense being used for fear-mongering.
Also, Signal was released not because of end-to-end encryption but because the founder sold WhatsApp and wasn't happy with the direction.
You're confusing the founding of the Signal Foundation with the release of Signal. Textsecure/Redphone which Signal came from existed in some part around 2010 or thereafter. Their merging and re-release as an all-in-one IP-based encryption app also came before WhatsApp was sold to Facebook.
> You need to provide some statistics to demonstrate it was a common knowledge.
It was referenced in popular media for decades... So people knew about it and it was public knowledge. The reason no one cared is that the outcome of it wasn't the horror story being repeated constantly.
The funny thing is, if you think this law would affect you, it will probably reduce the amount of data they get. Why? Because they still spy on you with end-to-end encryption, it's just more work and they hack the shit out of you.
We outlaw homelessness because we don't want homeless people on the streets littering the place.
The bad behaviours you want to be outlawed are in fact already outlawed. It's just super hard to catch and convict on those. While it's a lot easier to prove someone is sleeping rough.
First: We hide the symptoms behind a veneer of illegality which allows us to ignore the underlying causes.
Second: We intentionally write laws which has a proportionally negative effect based on social and medical class of citizens. A class which is already facing hardships.
”The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
> This chat control topic is undemocratic, allegedly illegal in many jurisdictions (such as Germany), yet, keeps coming up ever and ever again, and the politicians face no consequences whatsoever.
How is it undemocratic? Arresting terrorists, drug dealers, child abusers, etc have no impact on democracy. And it's legal for the government to intercept your communications and has been for decades and in fact your communications have been mass monitored for decades and we still have democracy.
> allegedly illegal in many jurisdictions (such as Germany)
Germany is one of the leaders in data requests in the world. They're right on it.
> keeps coming up ever and ever again, and the politicians face no consequences whatsoever.
That's because we have a democracy and people vote on who they want. And if they do what people want they get another few more yeears. So these politicans just following the will of the people.
> Endeavour like these make people vote for extremists, distrust the EU and democracies, or just give up on politics for good.
Those people we can just ignore, they were always going to be on the fringe.
> These EU politicians endangering freedom, justice and democracy must be held accountable, with the most powerful punishments available.
They are not. You've just been blissfully unaware of the world you've been living in, and think this is something new. Nah, the only thing new is that everyone's messages are encrypted. That's the only new thing.
If your work-style is butt-in-seat for 8 hours having everything on your laptop probably works. For folks with a more meeting-heavy workload, having at least your work calendar/email/messenger on your phone is pretty hard to go without
Why are you on your phone during meetings and not paying attention to the meeting? We ban phones/laptops for the specific reason of people attending and not paying attention.
reply