So you don't have a VW employee coming by your house in the evening to check if the key fob is still in you possession? Sometimes he even does a testdrive to make sure it still works with the car.
What kind of argumentation is this? Just because someone decides to show stuff, everybody else is also required to show themselves?
e.g. If I go to a theater where the actors are clearly identified, I have to be okay to get a facial scan as well?
Some people tend to demonize porn, and it might be unethical in their eyes, but fact is: it is not illegal (in most countries).
I don't argue that there are issues in the porn industry, but this is an issue with the platforms, that they don't allow the upload of non-consentual material, or and have processes to take it down. This is a 'THEIR' problem (the platform not the victims).
There some of these issues also exist in the standard movie and music industry as well. Hell, it even goes up to company executives and politics. But this is up to law enforcement do their job and to remove the illegal stuff and prosecute the involved persons, not by branding everyone as a suspect.
Funnily enough, there is also the exact opposite discurse in the US regarding firearms; where one side says: that firearms need to somehow be restricted and and it needs more checks to buy a gun.
But then the Industry tells the story that in that case only the 'good guys' get restricted, since the 'bad guys' don't really follow the law anyways.
Where with Anti-cheat and DRM only the 'good guys' get hit, since the 'bad guys' don't follow "the law" anyways.
One big hurdle, I guess most new pythonistas stumble over, is the one where you add an create an empty default list in a class:
You would think it creates a new empty list, for each object of this class, but it actually creates one which is shared between all of the objects. I had a lot of fun with that one once.
not the one who asked the questions, but I actually think 4% are not enough.
If Google or Meta makes 10% of their earnings with that shit and they have to pay max 4% they still have a 6% margin over - not doing it.
IMHO there should be a 4% fine additionally to paying back all the illegally generated earnings. Also, more executives should go to jail for it - And that's the C-Level Executives, because it's them which are accountable.
Problem with those things: usually it still hits the little ones harder than the big players...
When the whole SaaS stuff started to pop up as buzzword I actually believed that it would work that way.
You don't pay some heavy license fees for a local installation anymore, but get a login where you get billed a specific amount if you use it that day/week/month etc.
I was pretty sad when I saw how it got implemented...
I see what you are suggesting here, I see the same trend but I think the reason why is not the one you are implying.
The HN community, in most topics, is against censoring, echo chambers and that free speech doesn't mean you can say anything without being called out.
IMHO there are two impacted groups here:
a) the ones who block everything and everyone that doesn't agree with them (on a public platform)
b) the ones who are harassed and stalked and need to use the block as a defense
the change is bad for people in group b) - which most people can agree on. The problem with blocking is, it doesn't solve the problem (it's the equivalent of the EU's great idea of DNS blocking). There should be a system in place that actual (online) harassment can be legally pursued and prevented.
against group a), I think the change is a net-positive
This somehow reminds me of the TV show "Supernatural" where Angels need 'consent' of the people to possess their body. Which basically is "they said yes", and often how they get the 'yes' contains a lot of deceit (pretending to be someone else etc) misdirection and even torture...
Maybe I have to ask that guy some questions....