fwygon

I'm suspecting these companies are trying to use Data Caps to "Deter Piracy" without saying as much.

Unfortunately; the reality now is that these Data Caps do not just affect rampant pirates or people who download a lot of things. They are trying to justify an outdated policy that no longer works as intended; and hoping customers won't notice them taking a bit more profit off the top.

They've been more than caught now and the practice must stop or customers will get federal regulators involved

I think not.

We've been bathing in private for the past 200 or so years hereabouts. It is difficult, if not improbable, to reverse such a trend in society and culture so quickly.

While I may actually feel this is a thing that society might benefit from; I don't see this happening outside of nations with a lower societal taboo, and more robust cultural norms and practices on the subject of nudity. It works in Japan simply because that's how their entire society has been structured from the start, and their society largely agreed that communal bathhouses made much more sense logistically and economically; largely due to the fact that it is an island nation, and land space is more precious there.

Furthermore; I personally also prefer privacy. As a trans individual; that privacy is strongly necessary to me for many valid reasons concerning my own safety and health; and for ensuring others do not feel unsafe; regardless of their reasons for feeling that way.

Society is not ready for this kind of thing anymore and has mostly chosen to abandon the practice to antiquity.

I genuinely hope this works out and can be replicated across the world. Diabetes is quite a problem for some; and most importantly; it's something you can't really easily prevent from occurring if you're moderately predisposed to it.

I don't think this app is problematic. I think it's attempting something interesting. Whether that will work or not will remain to be seen.

As with many "untested" dating app concepts; "May the user(/buyer) beware." My advice to people who doubt the app is to 'avoid it'. There's plenty of valid reasons why you may feel that it won't work. I'm not going to invalidate those feelings nor those experiences.

Enough people will vote with their feet; either by using it, using and quitting it, or not using it at all; that we will probably see within a few years if it works or if it quickly dies and languishes in obscurity.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing how well things performed in 5 years from now for this concept. I do feel it could help, especially if the boilerplate rejection text is designed intelligently enough. I certainly feel like enough people struggle with mental health that what they are trying to do could be beneficial to encouraging people not to act impulsively. I think providing mental health resources right there in the app may allow rejectees to seek help they need; instead of pinning their hopes on finding a potential mate to address their issues, then lashing out at, or stalking, those potential mates when they're rejected.

To be clear; I do understand that many kinds of scary or bad experiences are a thing for some dating app users. I simply feel that, for those people who have not had such an experience and might feel safe or safer with such a messaging mechanic in a dating app; I do not see the harm in it.

At no point do I recommend this app anyone who feels that it's unsafe to do anything but 'ghost' a bad match-up.

^Please,^ ^do^ ^not^ ^try^ ^to^ ^change^ ^my^ ^mind.^

Agreed; when an AI is used to bring things to the attention of a qualified human handler; the two working in tandem can be pretty effective.

AI alone should never make decisions; and humans should always evaluate an AI's findings carefully before acting on them.

We can no longer trust anything that is specifically sent to us via digital means.

Technologies like the Document Scanner and even the Photocopier will now have to encode secret data to authenticate that a real, functioning machine has digitized the document.

This can in fact, cause a great amount of trouble for people.

People will be required to never digitize themselves handwriting all letters of the alphabet; lest their handwriting be vulnerable to an AI learning it.

Whoof. The burn.

Glad to see some people understand how much more problematic Trump is than anything that Harris would be doing.

Firefox is open source. It's not going anywhere; even if Mozilla Co. goes broke and closes down the Mozilla Foundation.

Most reasonable consumers won't go for this. it's a greed play.

Give me mice that I own; not mice to rent.

Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. This idea belongs in the garbage bin.

No.

It is hard to have both; but not impossible. You can still be privacy friendly without sacrificing necessary functionality.

It will require that the "provider" of such a dataset constantly scrub, sanitize and remove data that would cause privacy hazards as quickly as reasonably possible however. That in and of itself is a technical challenge; though not impossible.

Ideally there's not a whole lot of data that needs to be kept.

Legitimately all that needs to be stored is a few things:

• Location (GPS)
• SSIDs (Wifi APs only)
• Cell ID & MCC/MNC (Cell Towers only)

and things they MUST NOT STORE OR SHARE like:

• IPs of contributors for longer than a few days
• un-hashed BSSIDs (Wifi/BT)
• MAC addresses (Wifi/BT)
• IMEI/IMSIs (or other cellular identifiers derived from them)
• APs that don't exist in a fixed location (Think mobile hotspot SSIDs) for longer than a fixed amount of time.
• BT devices
• Non-unique SSIDs or IDs that may indicate no user config took place and manufacturer did not differentiate device ID. (Things like "SETUP" with no unique number (SSIDs like"SETUP-be3fd34d" would be valid) or "[ISP]@HOME" or "[ISP]Wifi" which provide no meaningful discriminators)