Yep. Had that happen with the United app a few weeks ago. Unsolicited spam sent via push notification to my phone. Turns out that they added a bunch of notification settings - of course all default to on.
Turned them all off except for trip updates that day.
Best part is- yesterday I received yet another unsolicited spam push message. With all the settings turned off.
So these companies will effective require you to use their app to use their service, then refuse to respect their own settings for privacy.
I've taken to "Archiving" apps like this on my Android phone. When I need it, I can un-archive it to use it. Keeps the list of things trying to get my attention a little bit smaller.
I just hellban every app from sending any notifications, except for a select few. Apps get like a one strike policy on notification spam. If they send a single notification I didn't want, I disable their ability to send notifications at all.
Also all notifications/etc are silent, except for alarms, pages, phone calls, and specific named people's texts.
Everything else... no. YouTube was the worst offender before for me.
Another technique for me is to avoid apps like Instagram, Facebook and Youtube. I run them all through mobile Firefox with uBlock origin and custom block scripts that block sponsored posts and shorts. This combines well with having Youtube's history turned off which prevents the algorithmic suggestions.
I give apps a one strike policy on notification spam. If they do it at all, I'm uninstalling it until I actually need to use it next (if I can't find an alternative). And the same goes for getting in my way to beg for a review on the app store: that's a shortcut to getting a one-star rating.
The main exception to this is the notification spam from Google asking me to rate call quality after every damn call. I don't have my phone rooted, so I can't turn off that category of notification.
Why even give most apps even one chance? For almost every app I have zero interest in ever getting a notification from. I see no reason to give them an opportunity to annoy me even once.
Honestly because I won't remember to go into the settings page and disable it. When a notification comes in, there's a quick route to disable forever, otherwise I have to go preemptively digging
This is why whenever you try to do anything significant on a web site with a phone, they tell you to "Download our app". Detection is very good now. Slack can see right through desktop mode, cheater, and will redirect you to the app regardless.
Never had that issue on Vanadium browser, or Brave or even Firefox. I personally refuse to download an app if there is a website for the same. For a long time I was even using door dash in browser.
I get the sarcasm, but it's like comparing apples to oranges. Calling a number and talking to people is vastly different to clicking some buttons on your phone. App/website have almost same user interface, just different ways to get to that interface. Calling the number is totally different interface.
Boarding pass. For the airline apps, it probably is a good assumption that most people want to get a notification that their flight is delayed, or started boarding, etc..
Sending ad notifications is a recent trend, normally Apple guidelines don’t allow it, but they know that Apple cannot much fuss about with all the regulatory pressure.
It’s the enshitification of the notification system, the apps are already filled with ads and now they’re making you open the app or splash things on your face.
I think he's old enough to be tried as an adult here. He architected the product, it was no silly accident. I think his choice of role models may be a reflection of his character...
I don’t think they are in short supply, but the vast majority of them aren’t the super-successful so we don’t see their names often.
They are the teachers, coaches, and engineers. The problem is the anti- role models are the ones who get all of the media:
Andrew Tate (mysogenistic pyramid schemer and pimp / sex trafficker of high school girls),
Joe Rogan (his mind is so open that his brains fell out),
Jordan B Peterson (charlatan who dresses up banal self-help advice with pseudo-intellectual jargon to seem profound, drug addict who is still taking very big risks with his health, frequently argues strawmans by misrepresenting postmodernism, Marxism, atheism, etc).
Our heuristics of who we should look up to are skewed because too many young people revere wrath and fame over ethics, morals, and values which may hold us back from success.
Exactly, concentration of attention onto singular figures as role models should be avoided; kind of like how we agree that it is healthier for the EU citizens to have a more diverse market than concentrated monopolies.
We do have to recognize that we have societally dropped the ball by allowing media companies brainwash the population into thinking that money and fame is unquestionable success; this has allowed the corporate mouth pieces to blow so much hot air into the bullshit they spew, that turds end up floating to the top.
What is clear as day is that we live in a world where Brandolini's law is being exploited constantly: that there is a constant fight to DARVO the heck out of our perceptions is undeniable.
We need to normalize bringing receipts to back your claims...
How to teach the average person not to follow the siren's song of populism and rage baiting?? That, I have not yet figured out.
If you search "cumtown Nick Mullins Jordan Peterson" on YouTube that should get you there (yes it's crass but in the context of Jordan Peterson it's funny)
:( I had to click through because I didn't believe you at first... as someone who used to proudly work with feds, this yet another low point in many over the past ten years.
There are way more people calling it in at large orgs or FAANGs. Clearly you've never worked in a civil service position given your foolish caricature of one.
For DOGE specifically? Would be interested to hear of those DOGE employees who truly deserved to be GS-15s due to their extensive experience in both tech and government.
The USDS and DOGE had completely different mandates. Non government experience makes sense when you’re trying to learn the lessons of industry to improve gov website accessibility, performance and ux.
On the other hand, trying to slash spending with no understanding of the agencies you’re working at- let alone any life experience for a lot of these folks- is a very different mandate.
But when your kid needs Internet access to do their homework, and you forget to turn off the WiFi to their device after they're done... then they sneak that Chromebook to their room and watch videos all night, you lose.
When you have a extra phone that was sitting on your desk that you were preparing to resell and your kid sneaks that to their room to watch a few hundred YouTube shorts before you catch him, you lose.
When you have parental controls set up on your wifi network, but it's trivial to shut the wifi off and use the cellular network instead, you lose.
When your friends all have personal cell phones but you don't, you lose.
Parents have their hands full enough. Make it easier for parents, don't poke at them with a pointy stick.
> But when your kid needs Internet access to do their homework, and you forget to turn off the WiFi to their device after they're done... then they sneak that Chromebook to their room and watch videos all night, you lose.
You are at fault.
> When you have a extra phone that was sitting on your desk that you were preparing to resell and your kid sneaks that to their room to watch a few hundred YouTube shorts before you catch him, you lose.
You are at fault.
> When you have parental controls set up on your wifi network, but it's trivial to shut the wifi off and use the cellular network instead, you lose.
This can be controlled via Parental Controls on iOS via Screen Time. If you chose not to, you are at fault.
> When your friends all have personal cell phones but you don't, you lose.
Not sure what you want anyone to do about this. I recognize that life isnt fair.
> Parents have their hands full enough. Make it easier for parents, don't poke at them with a pointy stick.
No one is arguing against this. They are arguing how to implement this.
Glad to hear your life is so simple that you can track all this while working full time jobs, cooking healthy meals, driving the kids to the various activities and travel sports (because you could be arrested if you let your kids walk anywhere), making sure they complete their homework on time, monitoring their interactions with friends, tracking new tech trends to find new threats (is my kid interacting with character.io or ChatGPT in an unhealthy way?)... I'm sure I'm missing a few more.
And yes, you are arguing against "making it easier for parents" - my original post literally advocated for legislating tech companies to make controls available, effective, and easy to use. If you truly believe what you're saying, then you'd agree with me. Instead you're nitpicking my ability to parent my kids. Exactly the behavior that isn't working, so please continue - I'm sure it'll work now.
> Instead you're nitpicking my ability to parent my kids.
You willingly invited that conversation. I obliged.
> If you truly believe what you're saying, then you'd agree with me.
Get over yourself. You have not made an attempt to ask for a solution from me to find common ground. You keep trying to remove yourself from the responsibilities of parenting in the modern world as shown in the examples you put forth and your initial post asking that parents not shoulder the blame for what is happening under their nose. Surely they have some level of culpability.
I believe that it would be good for Parental Controls on devices to have a toggle to say that the phone is being used by someone in under 13, or someone 14-18 (whatever bands you want). When enabled, this flag should be available to locally installed apps and remote connections. Laws can be passed that tell remote connections how they must act when receiving this flag. This keeps me, an free adult, from being subjected to more corpo/govt tracking.
Ad hominem attacks - great way to find common ground. I actually did try to find common ground, which is that we need to legislate. My argument is that the real entities that need legislation are the ones who can most afford to do so - in both time, resources, and ownership of the platforms that we are all beholden to. I will not advocate for even more punitive restrictions on parents (who already are subject to enough societal punitive pressures as it is - TBH your post is a great example. Instead of empathy, you reply with scorn and derision - as if I'm not good enough to parent my kids).
> I believe that it would be good for Parental Controls on devices to have a toggle to say that the phone is being used by someone in under 13, or someone 14-18 (whatever bands you want).
So you're admitting that parental controls are ineffective?
> Laws can be passed that tell remote connections how they must act when receiving this flag.
And those laws are enforced through what mechanism? What country enforces this law? Do ISPs now have to only accept connections from "legal" remote servers that have attested that they respect that flag? That sounds like an even more restrictive situation for you, as a free adult, than the current system.
But, I do have good news! What you described already exists! In fact, there are even W3C standards that have been around for 30 years to implement a machine readable content rating system! Just never got around to that whole passing a law thing to force all websites globally to adopt it...
Grow some skin. I used that ad hominem in response to your false dilemma/no true support comment of "If you truly believe what you're saying, then you'd agree with me". This comment ignores the obvious 3rd option that we can share underlying values (parental controls are helpful) while disagreeing on details, tradeoffs and the responsibility that comes with parenting.
> So you're admitting that parental controls are ineffective?
I never stated anything of the sort. I specifically pointed how they could be effective for you in the examples you brought forth. I think they could be made more effective, not that they are ineffective.
> And those laws are enforced through what mechanism?
If this is how you feel, than no solution you put forth is valid either.
At this point, I've stated how current parental controls can solve some of your issues, parental controls can be strengthen, outlined an implementation that does not disrupt the lives of Adults on the internet while also pointing out that parents are not immune from blame and are bare the majority of control over their childs lives. Ive engaged with you in good faith.
You just keeping shitting on everything. All because I stated that parents are not immune from blame. I stand by the ad hominem.
