No it didn’t. It stated they had to give them to the court.

No, I’m asking you to show me where it says personally-identifiable information, such as names, are fine for companies to broadcast publicly.

Why can’t you provide this proof?

Grow up. Data protection laws exist. Companies can’t go round posting information about specific users, no matter how much you and your school friends think it would be a funny way to, like, totally own those politicians brooo.

Why on earth would they bundle gamepass into Office365? Office365 is pretty much used for business and educational institutions. Everybody else is a rounding error.

The overlap between Office365 owners and Xbox gamers is extremely small.

You’d just end up pissing everybody off by combining them

• “They’ve added how much to the price by adding this gamer nonsense?! I don’t need that crap, I want office software!”

• “They’ve added how much to the price by including fucking PowerPoint and Outlook?! I don’t need that crap, I want to play games!”

And not to defend MS, but a 43% increase isn’t nearly doubling. A 100% increase would be doubling.

No it doesn’t. It states they have to give it to the courts.

Courts wanting access to information to do their job != “Sure, go and publish personally-identifiable information about your customers”

You’ve still been unable to show that companies can go around publishing information about specific users without their consent.

Hahaha there’s a big difference between a court ruling that you have to provide member lists to the courts if they request it, and “companies are allowed to freely publish personally-identifiable information about their users”

Jesus. That’s the best you can do?

Broadly yeah, pinched between my thumb and fingers, though of course I don’t eat it vertically lol

🤌🥪

Precisely.

Tthey said that they started work on it and by the time they submitted it, they found out that others had already done the same (of course they wouldn’t have known this when they started the legwork), but that ultimately that doesn’t matter because if it goes class-action – which is their desired path of action – the cases will be combined anyway.

If anything it’s beneficial that multiple people took this up, it should make class-action more likely.

Ding ding ding. This user knows how people operate.

This is bewildering. What a shame.

I had minor gripes with some of their services but Proton has broadly been pretty great in my eyes.

Some CEOs baffle me. Surely, even if they are massive fans of one US political party over the other, they’d have the sense to keep it to themselves to prevent it becoming a thing that causes a fallout with existing/potential customers? But no. They’re too fucking narcissistic for that, and they think everyone wants to hear their opinions and follow them.

How have I not seen this before lmao

Of course it can be proven. You said it’s explicitly exempted. So prove it. You can’t.

Companies cannot publish personally-identifiable information about their customers without consent.

Nokia was purposely sabotaged by Stephen Elop.

Elop was a Microsoft employee who moved to Nokia to become their CEO.

Elop scrapped Meego as well as the rapidly-improving and highly promising Symbian OS that Nokia had, killed internal projects that used Android, and went all in on Windows Phone 7, a completely unproven platform that just happened to be from his ex employer.

After the market really didn’t like that, Microsoft was able to buy Nokia for a bargain price (€5.4bn), and Elop was given a €18.8m bonus.

Curiosly, that bonus works out as €1 million for every €1 billion that was wiped off Nokia’s market cap during his time as CEO. But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence…

When he was asked for the good of the company to take a smaller bonus, Elop said that he “couldn’t”.

After the deal to buy Nokia went through, Elop moved to a different cushty position within Microsoft.

Nokia didn’t really fumble smartphones. They were purposely ran into the ground by Microsoft so they could use a powerful brand name as the the thin end of a wedge to take over the phone market, without having to pay much for it. Then Microsoft fumbled it from then on out.

Yet you can’t prove it. Interesting. So strange.

You cannot publish personally-identifiable information about your customers.

We already went over this.

Data protection laws exist, and you cannot publish information about specific customers online for the world to see.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Pornhub won’t do this. I get that you want them to break the law, but they won’t.

It does exist.

You cannot publish personally-identifiable information about your customers.

Please stop lying.

Pornhub cannot go around naming and shaming specific users without consent.

This stuff never works. And plenty of sites don’t even implement the checks anyway.

I’m all for preventing kids from seeing harmful content, or being on social media at a young age, but these solutions are just plasters on an open wound.

I’m not saying it would be perfect, but it seems to me like routers should come with a QR code sticker on top that, during initial setup, will take you to a parental controls menu. One that should be vastly more idiot-proof than they currently are.

From there, people with kids can decide whether they want it on or not.

Will it prevent everything? Of course not! But it does place control in the parent’s hands, makes it much simpler to understand, and doesn’t come with data-handling plus privacy quandaries.

Trouble is, in addition to it likely still being taken down, or you being sued still, that also means you can’t ask online for assistance in building it.

These things are rarely one person working on it. They get the word out to find more modders who want to help.

Reminds me of my old N-Gage

Taking phone calls on that thing was so strange. You had to hold it like you’d hold a sandwich.

Point to a single law.

Go on. Show me a law where it says companies publicly sharing personally-identifiable information about users without their consent is fine.

You are so wrong. Companies cannot just release personally-identifiable data about people. You’re being crazy if you think they can.

Information that can be used to identify an individual cannot be shared without consent.

Publicly outing specific people with their names falls under that.

It’s hilarious how wrong you are.

No they can’t. Please stop making stuff up. Please stop the lies. You’re spreading misinformation.

Pornhub cannot go around publishing info about specific accounts holders, such as their name and job.

It’s actually insane that you think that’s the case.

Of course it is protected.