A lot of the work they do is aimed at thwarting the business models of cyber criminals, scam sites, etc.
Their reviews are probably from the people who had a good thing going using bots to scrape PII or take advantage of free trials/free tier SaaS products but were suddenly put out of business by cloudflares captcha tools.
No. Read closely. Both require it to be in the app.
It’s Apple Review Guideline 5.1.1:
(i) Privacy Policies: All apps must include a link to their privacy policy in the App Store Connect metadata field and within the app in an easily accessible manner…
For Android it’s in their User Data article:
Privacy Policy All apps must post a privacy policy link in the designated field within Play Console, and a privacy policy link or text within the app itself…
It is a requirement of both Android and iOS app stores to have a policy prominently displayed for users.
Oh yeah, valid point!
Try the Hogo mobile app - they will do some of these for you for free every month or pay a month and do removals on all the sites they cover, then discontinue.
Neither of those links contain information relevant to their privacy pro removal product, which only runs on your local device and is definitely not supported by advertisements.
However, I suppose I can see how you may not trust the brand due to their browser and search engine have integrated ad tracking.
I 2nd the DuckDuckGo recommendation.
The way their service works is the MOST private imo. Runs locally and shares minimal data during the takedown request process.
Yes it does. I would venture there are alternative solutions but I can’t imagine what they are in any detail, just generally:
Maybe these trucks operate more like trains and have a designated lane where motorists do not have to encounter them?
I think it’s a great idea to require a human attendant for giant autonomous machinery.
If the company does not provide the attendant, then the public is just going to shoulder that burden.
I am NOT going to protect or respect unattended property like an autonomous truck if it runs off the road or rams my vehicle or is a risk to my own safety, for example.
I’m pretty sure I’d be offended just having to ride behind it on the freeway as it drives precisely the speed limit in all traffic conditions - can’t say for sure until I’ve experienced it though.
Just once, I want to see somebody put a boot on a parking cops car while the cop is putting a boot on theirs.
When you have privacy settings, what you really have is a lie.
It starts out with good intentions, like those in this post, but eventually everyone forgets that the platform still sees your posts and does not give a shit about selling them.
I would rather acknowledge from the very beginning that this entire system is not private, so there is never such a misunderstanding.
Everyone should post and comment with caution, just like you use caution with what you say in public places.
If you tear the bun, you’ve got a sandwich on your hands for sure!
Nope! It has bread on three sides, so it’s a taco.
Sandwiches only have bread on two sides.
I am always telling people this in the is-a-hotdog-a-sandwich debate, and this diagram makes it abundantly clear:
A hotdog is a taco.
Didn’t these jokers already try to overthrow their capital city, angling for a total annexation of Ukraine within the first few days of the conflict?
If Ukraine had not fought back, it’s statehood would have been history over a year ago.
It sounds like you are equating any job to getting sexually abused or raped.
That is “like… Yuck”.
It’s an irrelevant comparison because the work itself is not abuse. There are other laws that protect kids from being abused, if they are being abused to force them to work(or for any other purpose).
If you don’t care what people under 18 think, you should reflect on how selfish and closed-minded that sounds to me and especially to the real human people you are proposing to lose their ability to work.
Do you really think there is a major difference between the brain of a 17 year old the day before their 18th birthday and the day after? There is no significant difference at all.
So, my question is, where do you draw the line for a person under 18 whose quality of life might depend on working? Should they just have that freedom stripped because you don’t care what they think?
Even if they are on their own? Or supporting a dependent, like their own baby? Really? If you are that authoritarian about this, I hope you forget to vote on it.
As others have pointed out, those laws have important exceptions to account for kids who want to work, and that is the question I am asking all of the knee-jerk authoritarians:
What is the actual policy position they support? What are the exceptions they support or are they completely authoritarian about this issue? (I think a strict rule prohibiting all people under 18 from ever earning a living is a pretty embarrassing position to defend.)
What are emancipated teenagers supposed to do? Should they live 100% at the mercy of state programs and not improve their living standards beyond the meager social welfare they are afforded until they turn exactly 18 years old? Really? Not even a day sooner, even if they are ready and qualified to work?
That would be completely inhumane. Certainly it’s depriving them of their bodily freedom and natural ability to extract capital value from their own labor.
So where is the line? 13? 14? I think somewhere in there is reasonable. Perhaps a test could determine their capacity to participate in their own economic fate? Or an evaluation by a social worker? I could go for something like that.
What if they are NOT emancipated and their parent is supervising them? Should the age minimum be higher then? 17? 18? I do not think so.
I think it’s only logical that the age minimum should actually be lower if a parent is directly supervising - their physical and economic risk is lower if the parent is looking out for their best interests. This of course presumes that the parent is not physically or mentally/emotionally abusing the kid(again, separate laws exist for the abuse component and most parents don’t abuse their kids).
People offended just by looking at this picture out of context should really try explaining their preferred authoritarian social policy to a teenager who wants a part-time job but for whom some people would forbid them by penalty of the law.
Spoiler: They won’t understand why you should have any authority over their body and time.
I don’t understand why you should have that authority either. I mean, where does it end?
What are your criteria for exceptions? Shouldn’t it be between the kid and their parents, and not you?
Are you imagining there is a parental figure with a bull whip for this kid in the back office and you want to outlaw physical abuse? There are already separate laws for that!
I think they probably wake up thinking exclusively about how to increase their net worth, through politics and marketing, at the expense of low information voters.