I’m not familiar with UK legislation in particular, but considering approaches taken by other legislative bodies, their works effectively require online services to serve “age-appropriate experiences” based on age signals; which includes websites, applications and application stores. So unless an adult is content with just experiences deemed “appropriate” for all users (even children under 10), the user is extremely limited in their access. So I don’t think “bricked” is necessarily an overstatement.

Maybe because now it’s Google Gemini under the hood?

It’s Apple buying goodwill, for both itself and the Trump administration, while only marginally benefiting the average US citizen, if at all.

I’m not saying it isn’t pathetic, but Apple has a track record of gobbling Trump’s marbles for business, so it should be expected they aren’t risking anything over the name of a lake in their mapping service.

What did you expect from a Trillion dollar corporation, that gifted Trump a 24k gold and glass statue, made a $100B commitment to US manufacturing, and being among the “donors” of the White House ballroom? But changing the name of a lake? Too far…

The parallels with the EU’s Digital Services Act are just remarkable, both in terms of timing and substance (down to the phrasing). But on the bright side, when Facebook prompted my mom to choose between a subscription, and her being the product, it first-handedly confronted her with the platform’s policies. And knowing that she believed a selfie video to be disproportionate, even in context of changing a banking app setting, she will be even more reluctant to submit it to a social media platform; especially since her joy in using the platform has also decreased over time. So perhaps this might be yet another friction point, that could lead users to stop using the platform altogether. But the sad reality is that this won’t be restricted to Facebook, but also extend to platforms that are a net-positive to society.

There’s too frequently a mismatch between the speed communicated by road design, versus that dictated by a sign. Mechanisms like this overwrite the driver’s intuition, which can only lead to more frustration. Sure, there are incompetent drivers on the road, but that doesn’t mean you have to micromanage the fleet in its entirety. There’s plenty that have a functional brain and are more than competent enough to assess a given situation, irrespective of what a fixed speed limit might indicate. And if drivers used to speed to catch green, that indicates to me the waiting cycles must not have been optimized; and doing so possibly yielding the same result.

Come on guys, have a little faith in the Union… If we would all just give up on privacy, and blindly trust an international intelligence apparatus with our most intimate data, perhaps then they’d finally have enough privileges; at least for another year. We shouldn’t take steps to protect ourselves, instead the Union will act in our best interest and do it for us!

Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law.

Are you not aware of the Digital Services Act? This piece of legislation alone, provides all the incentives for service providers to do exactly that; unless they change their business-model, which is rather unlikely. By default, users should be treated as adults and therefore unrestricted in their access; rather than children unless proven otherwise.

If the EU would simply mandate operating systems sold within the jurisdiction, to allow specification of an optional ‘date of birth’ field, which is local and purely on a trust-basis (no external verification required); this should be more than sufficient for signaling an age-bracket to a service, which may then serve an “age-appropriate experience”.

A digital identity wallet should be strictly reserved for matters that already required personal identification. Using such heavy-handed measures for controlling access to adult content, or even social media, is complete and utter overkill. I’m not interested in more empty, technical, server-side “trust me, bro” promises, for something that is fundamentally disproportional.

“This matches my experience exactly.”

Did you really get raped, or did the roofie I put in your drink do its job?

It’s sad enough to resort to consumption for happiness, but to play shopping simulators because you can’t afford to, is outright depressing. And spreading awareness is fine, but it feels somewhat condescending, when (over)consumption is the coping mechanism here. These people are likely struggling to find long-term happiness, and can only afford short-term dopamine hits instead.

I used to just have a silicon case around my phone, with the banking card clamped between it and the phone: functionally the same, without any technical dependencies.

Humanizing and accustomizing

Right on, same here. :)

The study found 58.3 percent of buyers say they couldn’t live without Bluetooth connectivity

Strange, when smartphones no longer come with 3.5 mm sockets… The consumer never asked for the majority of these “features”: they already had access to most of them (through their smartphone or other standalone device), or was easily and cost-effectively installed as an aftermarket gadget. All of these “safety” features, that coincidentally also happen to constitute a (future) privacy-nightmare, were pushed for by: legislators, insurance companies, and the automotive industry itself. Consumers effectively got conned into buying a duplicate of products they already owned, but which are instead subject to terms and conditions dictated by aforementioned stakeholders.

Imagine going after those seeking to protect their works from being stolen by AI, instead of the AI scrapers that caused this entire shit show to begin with. Put the blame where it makes sense, and don’t try to guilt trip those that are victim of intellectual property theft, into believing they are the ones responsible for the web becoming an accessibility-nightmare; not for just the disabled, but everyone (locking content behind: a login, PoW challenges, and CAPTCHAs). Awful defeatist take.

Practically all modern vehicles are privacy nightmares on wheels. They have identifying sensors all over the vehicle, on both the exterior and interior. And all ECUs (monitoring and controlling sensors and actuators from a vehicle’s particular subsystems) are (indirectly) connected to a cellular modem, which is likely to support ‘vehicle to everything (V2X)’ communications: where the vehicle exchanges sensory data with external networks (primarily the manufacturer’s), road infrastructure and other road users nearby.

Your most effective remedy is to hamper the functioning of the modem, that is if the manufacturer doesn’t throw an error code as a result of it. If that isn’t an option, check if it allows you to physically disable sensors (taping off, or limiting the FOV of cameras, or unplugging microphones). And lastly, if even that isn’t an option, disable as many “features” as you can; even though some may require you to manually re-disable them, every time you restart your vehicle…

Keep in mind that in doing so, you might also disable actual features (ones you might find genuinely useful). Mozilla’s somewhat outdated reports of manufacturer’s privacy statements might give you some idea, of which brands could be considered the lesser of evil. But these are subject to constant change, as are the over-the-air updates of vehicles in their fleet, and their dynamic user manuals…

All the time. There’s occasionally even websites that outright block me without challenge, run many iterations on my machine, or present a tiresome amount of CAPTCHAs (Waymo machine vision must be trained pretty well, from me labeling goddamn traffic lights, motorcycles and stairs throughout the day). Especially CAPTCHAs that load new pictures with an infuriatingly slow fade animation drive me up the wall; one of which possibly not even sufficient.

But I take it as a compliment, as it might mean my browser profile is minimal enough to trip these systems into thinking it’s a headless browser (typically used for bot traffic).

Authentication of users seems to be outsourced to ‘identity providers (IdPs)’ (primarily: Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.: “login with…”); that manage access to a service’s resources, which are increasingly distributed throughout various cloud-based services. A service’s chat application might be hosted at provider X, whereas its website at provider Y; so managing access to these resources from a centralized identity pool is convenient. Well, unless you value you privacy, but that’s the end-user’s problem…

At least that is the impression I’ve gotten from my limited research on Amazon Cognito: required for contacting my doctor’s office through their forced chat application (automatic account creation, no longer a phone line for uses outside of emergencies). And yes, to anyone wondering: I am going to look for alternatives, because this should not be acceptable, at least for a doctor’s office of all places.