A (classically) liberal society can only work if everyone is held to the same standard of the law.

https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327

I really got fooled here for a second, but the unfortunate reality is that people will try this soon, and someone will have to litigate this, if open source is to survive, which will take years and millions of dollars to resolve

BTW, here's 120 Million funneled through te UN, which has dependent organizations (UNRWA) with ties to Hamas https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/news-...

https://unwatch.org/new-un-watch-report-exposes-hamas-takeov...

But hey, that's okay, because Israel is the problem, right?

But "the Jews .. uhm, I mean Israel .. had it coming and they did it to themselves" is always a favorite, isn't it?

Not sure that an apology is necessary though. Some overconfident marketing person tried something, and it failed. That's what happens if you try stuff. They should just try harder next time

But I have to agree that actual alternatives are a prerequisite for changing anything about the dominance of the US tech sector

Would be funny if antisemitism led to good outcomes for once

I'd argue for open protocols that allow exporting your data and switching services instead. Make export capabilities a requirement akin to data protection laws, and you have defanged the monopolistic nature of tech. Ideally also force interoperability between services, but that's a whole other can of worms.

This is on paper obviously much harder than just banning something, because you would have to define such exchange protocols, but it has a chance of success. One could start with certain industries, like social media, and in some cases build on existing work, like the AT or ActivityPub protocols.

Actually critisizing DOGE for their major gaffes (like putting up easily defaceable websites, or their incompetence when it comes to reading numbers accurately) is important, but this kind of article is just sad and diminishes the credibility of news journalism

It's not that bad, because you can explicitly turn that behavior off, but ask me how I know =(

Ah, got it. Then I'd say we should only regulate things that need regulation. I don't think advertising is one of these. The data collection happening in the background on the other hand...

> State funded operations don't generally prioritize profits [...]

Yes, but people generally do, even when they're funded by government. They just lose the incentive to create a good product.

> Yeah, again. Fund [the local little league] with taxes.

No. Why should I pay for something like that?

> If you want Microsoft Office, any Adobe product, Quickbooks, just to name a few, your only options are subscriptions to them.

Yes. And there's LibreOffice, GIMP/Inkscape and GNUCash (and many others) if you don't like that model.

BTW, these aren't what I was thinking about. I assume big players would generally be favored by such a prohibition, because they're already known to a wide audience.

> I mean just having a newsletter that advocates for socialism doesn't mean you're advertising socialism. It's propaganda, and that's fine. Propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing despite the modern attitudes towards it.

I agree with you, but the article explicitly lumps together propaganda and advertising. I think that's dangerous. Socialists should be free to make their case, even though I think it's idiotic