No, it's a scheme to stave off taxes on plastic packaging, or regulations to mandate glass. Which industry cares about how people feel about themselves, to fund and promote this scheme? On the other hand, it's very easy to point to the industry that benefits from continued use of plastic.

Or is the content simply absent, and unless you directly visit the banned accounts, you don't even know anything was censored?

after the original thread a year or so ago, team made a clearer way to show pricing options to give ppl/teams who buy an annual sub a discount w/o paying it all up front

So the clear language is new. And that doesn't touch on the losing access during the current billing period either.

> I have no clue why they decided to settle that lawsuit

Because they have changed their subscription page as part of the settlement. All the posters telling you how Adobe ripped them off are describing Adobe from before the settlement.

[1] Adobe's subscription model deploys recurring annual plans or termination with massive penalty - https://x.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1660907518430699523

[2] https://x.com/scottbelsky/status/1661376319169372166

They did a lot more than just making it hard to cancel, too: https://www.deceptive.design/brands/adobe

Giant unaccountable companies privatizing the public square harms free speech. Forcing them to at least reveal why something was censored would help free speech more than it would harm it. Unless you subscribe to the myopic legalistic 1st amendment position that "free speech" is maximized when companies can act with the least restrictions, no matter how unable to speak or be heard that makes individuals, so long as it wasn't the government that silenced them.

And if they're so good, then Meta can take credit for them and call them "Meta's Standards", instead of gaslighting us into thinking there is some shared "community" that encompasses Kuwait and California and Belarus, and that this community has agreed on a single set of standards to be imposed on everyone across the globe.

I see this all the time in such cases - deflections about the legality of censorship, to avoid the issue that they want to keep the censorship itself, or the source of it, secret. "They" in this case being Meta, unless they produce a legal order compelling them to deceive us.

[1] Really they're Meta's standards - it wasn't "the community" that wrote them.

Keep this in mind when they "fight racism" or want you to be "anti-racist".

> But that's within a legal system designed by an elected parliament.

Ah well if it's an elected government then the risk of it turning hostile to its people is zero, of course!

And ask "did that risk materialize?" to the people in China, or North Korea, or Russia, or Belarus, or Germany [1], or USA [2]. There are countless examples of the dangers of surveillance, in the present and in history - you don't need a specific example of exactly Oyster cards being used, to know they are a danger.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/03/german...

[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-administration-argues-it-ca...

More importantly, there's not spying on the user in the first place. The law doesn't force Google to spy, nor does it force Apple to lock consumers (for sure not "owners") out of their phones, so that they're left helpless when the CCP bans VPN and protest apps [1] (not to imply spying from Google alone isn't bad, before any other actors get involved).

[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-pulls-mapping-app-used-by-h...

But now it's so convenient and discreet and common, we think nothing of it. Plus, Google and Apple and Facebook and their partners and everyone they sell data to are our friends, not enemies :)