why do you think the Mozilla corporation losing 86% of their revenue wouldn’t hurt the Firefox browser?

Why is bringing in a relief crew not an option?

If any publisher (in this case, a lemmy instance) does not require the author to consciously consent to assigning the copyright of the comments to the publisher or some other entity, then by default the copyright of the comment is retained by the author who is allowed to write literally whatever licenses they like and as many licenses as they like for however many people they want.

https://gizmodo.com/who-actually-owns-your-content-when-you-post-it-to-the-1819953868

In the early days […] we often received a question along the lines of “I love the product and what Proton stands for, but how do I know you will still be around to protect my data 10 years from now?” […] Ten years and 100 million accounts later, we would like to think we have proven the point with our track record, but actually the question is just as relevant today as it was 10 years ago[.] […] Proton was not created to get rich[, …] but rather to address the […] problem of surveillance capitalism. […] Proton has always been about the mission and putting people ahead of profits […] and there is no price at which we would compromise our integrity. Frankly speaking, […] if the goal was to sell for a bunch of money, we could have done that long ago. […] Most businesses are built to be sold — we built Proton to serve the mission.

My problem is there’s literally ways you can organize a business that makes literally impossible to legally do these things. When businesses say these things, but don’t acknowledge the reality that they could always recharter the business in such a manner where you don’t just have to trust them to behave with no recourse if they don’t, I always have to add “but we still will continue to reserve the right to sell you out but pinky promise we won’t ever do it”

Not super familiar with EU law, but it was my understanding that a company that wants to be allowed to operate in the EU can’t just start violating an EU citizen’s EU granted rights just because aren’t literally geographically inside the EU at the time of the rights violation.

In other words, it’s my understanding that Apple would be liable for damages if, for instance, an EU citizen on vacation suddenly lost access to alternative app stores and such.

Yet again, we lack the only detail anyone actually cares about: how does Apple plan on actually limiting this functionality to the EU?

It’s difficult for me to imagine how they can comply with this but only for EU customers in a manner which can’t be easily circumvented. It kind of bothers me that journalists just parrot “these changes will not be coming to jurisdictions outside of the EU” uncritically, seemingly just completely taking for granted the idea that there’s not going to be any way to benefit from this if you don’t live in the EU.

“Could” as if there’s a possibility it will respect your privacy lmfao

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

As I said “Rich people would LOVE to own more in the same way and pay less taxes.”

So they’d love to do a thing that they have all demonstrated they are perfectly capable of doing? What is even the value of such a comment?

deleted by creator

You say in your original comment to me “the ultra wealthy would love to benefit from Roth IRAs!” Well guess what: they do and it’s often a substantial portion of their fortune.

So what is your point now?

Uh not really… he started PayPal and then sold himself like 1 million shares at $0.001 (a tenth of a penny!) a share. Did you even read the article? Literally anyone who starts a business has to inject capital. It’s not gambling any more than any other person simply starting a business.

Also if you do read the article. You will learn it is not just Peter thiel, but many many many wealthy individuals who have done similar things. You say “the ultra wealthy would love to have Roth IRAs!” Well guess what: they do and it’s often a substantial portion of their fortune.

So what is your point now?

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/billionaire-investor-peter-thiel-has-5b-his-tax-free-retirement-n1272317

Don’t forget that when someone is talking about the average American “owning stocks” what they really mean is “has a retirement account that works in a way they don’t fully understand, which includes securities such as stocks, that they are not legally allowed to touch until they are 60”.

Anyone who tries to insinuate that the way average Americans “own stocks” is in any manner comparable to the way the wealthiest do, should honestly literally be put in the stocks where commoners can hurl tomatoes at them.

I only enable telemetry for software provided by nonprofit organizations that are legally obligated to publish detailed financial records. Never give anyone that reserves the right to sell you out any of the benefit of your data for free.