ironically all that only happened because a brazil president passed laws that exposed corruption in brazil and abroad, but immediately was impeached without popular participation (congress coup) and now there's someone who would have been in jail had the impeachment not happened, sitting as president.
it was created in los angeles and all the legal documents still point to an office in los angeles.
and I doubt that if you search for #russia you will see videos about trump. When can we see a news article about how california censor tiktok?
edit: my point is that this is a fart-app. if you expect a modicum of newsworthy content, that is a problem already. this article is akin to crying because the jack-ass movie or hang-over-7 lacks political commentary.
could the interviewer have tried harder to 1) twist the words, and 2) still ignore the job of blaming who ordered/allowed Ito to pursue the funding in the first place?
Most big ball of muds have all that this article preaches. they are still big balls of mud because the rules are full of exceptions when they were convenient to the devs. and exceptions are as hidden as all the other things called out in the naive article.
if you use firefox on android, about:config has a "scrollbar timeout" setting that you can set to 0 or -1... now you will have an always visible scrollbar.
you must force close firefox before it takes effect.
false and irrelevant. advertising to the site content really means "to the site's content audience demographics".
what you describe is actually the personal ad targeting apocalypse we experienced recently. very well illustrated with the famous Taboola scam, where tabloid sites only had ads taking you to other tabloid sites.
which is the "workaround" to the gdpr the article badly describes (probably because brave upcoming ad network will do the same but more workaroundily)
now those are used to match a 3rd party id. you just need a gdpr_workaround schema in your data base with two columns user-id, google-random-id with N-1 records indexed both ways.
gdpr has restrictions on pin pointing a single person. this is effectively doing that, but claim it is not, because random ids. apple is just a little better with how device-advertiser-id works.
which makes the permissive BSD license even worse in hindsight.
it allowed microsoft and apple to profit hugely while giving nothing back. and in the end GPL produced much better product that was used by the industry despite the less permissive license.
...and today we are making the exact same mistake with AGPL.