One of the big problems social and collaboration platforms is people go to where the people are, like Lemmings, with disregard to principles and ethics. I go to the ethical venues regardless of where the people are. Instead of feeding a harmful network effect, I would rather feed free and open spaces. If I were to contribute to MS Github, I would have to consider myself part of the problem.
Did you report the bugs on the Lemmy github?
No, and I wouldn’t. I created this community specifically for reporting bugs when bug trackers are in bad places like Github:
Most people are indeed probably using Firefox
The cross-posting problem is specific to Tor Browser, which is Firefox based. But that one was fixed in 0.19.5.
I was actually shocked to recently learn many are using their phones, which often means 3rd party apps (and which would not have any of the stock UI bugs).
0.19.5 only fixes one of the 4 bugs (cross-posting). None of them seem to be mentioned in the change notes.
141 servers are already running 0.19.5
Ungoogled Chromium and Tor Browser are perhaps less popular than they should be.
FCC blocks Tor so I can’t see the page, but I just wanted to mention a hack if number porting is refused for some reason (based on @Yeno@lemmy.world’s hint that it could be): downgrade the vz contract to the full extent possible (ideally make it a prepaid acct if that’s possible, so you can nix the monthly fee). Then dial whatever magic code forwards your vz number to your new number.
So not what their running debt is but only whether they can take on a new, specific one.
I knew the criteria was out of the hands of EU-based lenders, but didn’t realise the data is also out of reach to the lender. I suppose it makes sense that the lender would get no info other than a yes or no, if lenders have no discretion.
I noticed A shop had a rediculously priced phone (like €800+, something I would never buy) but advertised something like €9 if you take a contract. So it’s effectively a loan factored into a locked-in phone service plan. IIUC, the phone shop must arrange that with a bank and does not have the option of taking on risk, and then the bank asks the central bank if customer X can handle that loan, correct?
You can reverse payments through the bank in the EU as well but it’s seldom necessary, since the companies tend to revert the charge willingly when confronted by the consumer protection bureaus.
I’ve only had to resort to bank reverse a couple if times.
One was when I ordered a pair of shoes of what appeared to be an Italian website. It later turned out it was a scam site that listed popular models that were not made anymore and then sent you a ridiculously poorly made knock-off copy from China. I explained the issue to my bank and showed the knockoffs I got and a week or so later the charge was reversed.
That’s quite a surprise. I heard SWIFT/IBAN transfers were permanent and irreversable. I heard of mistakes being corrected but it required the two banks to collude and the bank of the recipient to do a money grab on their account, which I suppose would be impossible if a criminal closes their account. I wonder if your bank took a loss or if they colluded with the other bank. IIRC, banks have a minimum “investigation” fee of like €25 plus an hourly rate to pay bankers to deal with bad transactions. Did your bank offer that service for free?
The only similar things I know is the central bank keeping a listing of “unpaid credit” which make ban you from getting any new credit for a certain time.
Indeed that’s what I’m talking about. In Belgium it seems consumers have no control over whether a creditor can access the central bank’s records. Apparently the central bank simply trusts that creditors are checking records in response to an application for credit. I would like to know if any EU countries make use of an access code so consumers can control which creditors can see their records.
I don’t mean to imply anything about scoring, but certainly there must be some kind of mechanism to expose bad debtors to lenders.
In Belgium, there are no private credit bureaus but there is a central bank. Belgian banks are obligated to report loan defaults and cash transactions to the central bank, and creditors are obligated to check the central bank’s records. Consumers have no way to control creditors access to their records in the central bank. It seems to be trust based. The central bank apparently trusts that a creditor is checking a consumer’s file in connection with an application for credit by the consumer.
Wish I could see it. www.onem.be seems to be dropping my packets.
Self-hosting is a different scenario than the way most users reach the fedi. Self-hosters certainly have fewer reasons to have multiple accounts. But obviously the one unescapable reason is privacy. If all activity is under the same account, doxxing risk is pegged.
Another reason a self hoster would want multiple accts is followship. Someone might want to follow you because they love your French posts about oil painting, for example, but since you do everything with the same account they also have to see posts in English about politics, religion, phones, movies, etc, they may not want all the other noise. Compartmentalisation improves followship.
Young voters did this, ironically enough, according to BBC World News. Young people struggling to get jobs after graduation think that right wing parties will fix that.
So as older generations are trying not to hand-off a burning planet to the young, the young are signing up for a burning planet under some delusion that right wingers will get them jobs. Schools have apparently failed to teach kids that the jobs they get under conservative governance are shit jobs – lousy pay and lousy benefits.
My god… “Consumer power” is a myth, there’s no evidence of it working for anything significant.
I guess you are not following Gaza. McDonalds in Israel decided to give free meals to Israeli soldiers. McDonalds customers who boycott Israel impacted McDonalds’ bottom line. And it’s a franchise. The McDonalds shops in Israel had different ownership than McDonalds outside Israel (where the boycott was impacting). So in response McDonalds HQ directly bought out all Israeli branches in order to stop the support to Israeli troops, just to protect their brand.
Lidl and Aldi both started taking a hit in Europe because their produce from Israel was being boycotted. Aldi got caught removing the origin label from their produce when Israel was the origin. Lidl got caught falsifying the label by displaying a different region. If the boycott was insignificant, there would be insufficient motivation for a grocery chain to commit fraud against their customers. So I boycott the whole Lidl chain and Aldi North, not just Israeli products.
Organize your workplace
Or boycott without organising, as this person did:
https://slrpnk.net/post/4687232
Boycotts only lack effect when in fact they are not executed. IOW, the apathy you advocate weakens the strength of boycotts. The shitty attitude that boycotts don’t work is the sole factor that disempowers boycotts from working.
Indeed. And it’s worth noting as well that Cloudflare encourages admins to deploy heavy websites, pushes graphical CAPTCHA (which adds weight), and makes text browsers less usable. So I boycott Cloudflare, as well as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Lemmy.world uses CF, so changing instances to get off Cloudflare is also a climate action.
It seems anti-immigration is driving all these right wing votes. And xenophobia manifests from the naïve idea that immigrants will somehow reduce incomes.
Well, you can vote harder. The polls are not the only place you vote. Every purchase is a vote. Most people neglect their consumer power. I’m boycotting hundreds (if not thousands) of harmful companies and products, including Amazon. You can always vote harder by investigating the shops and brands you support. You can investigate whether your bank invests in the fossil fuel energy and change banks (or better, become unbanked). You can follow the !climate_action_individual@slrpnk.net community.
E.g. certainly one small thing @lurch@sh.itjust.works can do is ditch sh.itjust.works for a different instance. Website weight has quadrupled since Cloudflare took hold because CF encourages web admins to create heavy websites. sh.itjust.works is CF-based.
Indeed. What a setback. I will continue practicing individual climate action (!climate_action_individual@slrpnk.net), which is the only control we have now.
Ungoogled Chromium with uMatrix running over a Tor circuit gave Yahoo’s typical blurred out paywall yesterday. Today (likely on a different Tor circuit) it gives “Too many requests – error 999.”
Engadget/yahoo is fully enshitified. If you can read that article it probably means your browser is insufficiently defensive. A tl;dr bot would be useful here.
I think it’s too hard for many to grasp the full consequence of surveillance via forced banking. They link cash to privacy which they then mentally reduce to “confidentiality”. It’s a lossy reduction but in the naïve brain privacy=confidentiality. They don’t realise privacy is about /control/, not just purely infosec concept of confidentiality, which then leads to the mental short-sightedness of thinking they’re dealing with “paranoia” (which is hinted in vzq’s next reply).
From there, I don’t have the answer as far as how to convey the full depth of the whole concept of privacy within the span of a post or comment that’s short enough to not be automatically ignored.
It’s not spontaneous shopping. People don’t walk around with dirty clothes either. A laundromat inside an apartment building for the residents living therein is not in the market for people walking around. Customers do not need to carry around cash and need not buy a special wallet because they are walking directly from their apartment to the basement on a planned basis. They can put the cash in a sandwich bag and set it on top of their clothes.
Cash accepts all people without exception. So cash just works from all standpoints: socioeconomic, legal, and from an engineering point of view. If someone does not like to touch money, that’s not cash failing to work; that’s a manifestation of Tyranny of Convenience (as described by Tim Wu) by someone choosing not to touch money. Such consumers are their own problem. Laughable to call that preference an engineering failure.
Many demographics of people are involuntarily excluded. Banks have refused to open accounts for me. Banks are in the private sector and have a right to refuse service to people. European banks cannot refuse someone a “basic” account, but those basic accounts are not required to be free of charge and they cannot accept cash deposits so if you’re starting with cash such accounts are broken from the start. For people who banks accept there are countless disempowering circumstances consumers are forced to accept in return. Unlike those who don’t like to touch cash, people voluntarily objecting to banking have countless good compelling reasons for not pawning themselves.
Banks violate human rights when they treat people differently based on their national origin. The privacy abuses actually also undermines human rights, as well as environmental harm inherent in forced periodic phone upgrades and in the banking industry’s fossil fuel investments. So when a consumer demands #forcedBanking because they don’t personally like the burden of carrying cash, it’s rather selfish that they prioritize some trivially esoteric convenience/novelty above human rights and also above people’s need to be free from nannies. So there is a very strong case for people to not bank by choice even if the bank accepts them. By comparison, it’s fair to dismiss anyone who supports forced banking simply on the basis of not liking the inconvenience of cash.
“1. to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, to protect the privacy of others, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;”
“II. To treat all persons fairly and with respect, to not engage in harassment or discrimination, and to avoid injuring others.”
…
“7. to treat all persons fairly and with respect, and to not engage in discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;”
The banking sector discriminates against people on the basis of national origin. So when an engineer designs as cashless system, they violate ¶7 of the IEEE code of ethics.
There is a new law that allows merchants to stop giving paper receipts.
The forced use of e-receipts in Europe (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, England, & Italy)