Is a takedown demand the worse thing that can happen?

Organisations happy to reduce costs, perhaps with greater output but with lower quality?

"The comments that followed were a bit off the rails. There's no conspiracy here from Microsoft. But the Internet discussion wound up catching the attention of Microsoft, and a day later, the account was unblocked, and all was well. I think this is just a case of bureaucratic processes getting a bit out of hand, which Microsoft was able to easily remedy. I don't think there's been any malice or conspiracy or anything weird."

Hopefully, this isn't just something Microsoft made them say as part of an agreement to get their account back.

I would guess they realized they missed a notification or warning and feel a bit bad about the whole thing blowing up. Hopefully not though. The fact there were several high profile projects that got caught off guard puts the blame mostly on MS IMO.

I think the reason these things go viral is that a ton of people reading about them can see themselves in the same situation, minus the clout needed to get it resolved. A short term PR crisis is the best we can get, so everyone piles on.

I don't think MS will fix it though. IMO, they're more likely to create a program for open source code signing. That way they can capture all the high visibility projects, get a bunch of goodwill for being philanthropic, and all the small projects that don't qualify are too small to cause a fuss, so they can continue to treat them poorly.

Because it's only a few extra kilometres, Iran could still hit them.

Australia has a law against "menacing or harassing" doxxing.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

(nice permalink URL guys.)

Good find. I don't think that NYT article would fall into the scope of the law. This is really adressed towards kiwifarms level of doxxing.

Trump kept his name in the headlines, for a narcissist that's all that matters.

"Commercially reasonable" would be something cheap, like ask a chatbot for an opinion.

I don't want to feed my biometrics and identity into AI companies' models so they can train on them for free and then sell facial recognition systems to the government.

Linux didn't even exist until the 1990s.

Edit: and the article clearly states, incorrectly, "That behaviour survived — untouched — through nearly half a century of Linux distributions."

I'm also such an old PC (Linux) person. However, I'm using the phone more these days, either to read books while I'm out and waiting and have nothing else to do, or to listen to audiobooks while I'm walking or working on menial tasks.

Now it's "Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns", which is a little vague.